Commissioner of Police v Alexander

[2020] NZHC 2259

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TIMARU REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE TIHI-O-MARU ROHE

CIV-2018-476-000060

[2020] NZHC 2259

BETWEEN

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Applicant

AND

STEPHEN CRAIG ALEXANDER

Respondent

AND

ETHAN CRAIG EYLES

First Interested Party

AND

DYLAN SHANNON EYLES

Second Interested Party

AND

EVAN ALEXANDER EYLES

Third Interested Party

Hearing:

(by telephone conference) 1 September 2020

Appearances:

A R McRae for Applicant

C J Lange for Respondent (with Respondent also attending in person)

E C Eyles (First Interested Party) in person

Judgment:

1 September 2020

JUDGMENT OF OSBORNE J

(by consent)

This judgment was delivered by me on 1 September 2020 at 3.00 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v ALEXANDER [2020] NZHC 2259 [1 September 2020]

[1]                 The application of the Commissioner of Police, on-notice, for restraining orders under ss 2, 24 and 25 Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 was for hearing before me today.

[2]                 The parties have successfully negotiated the resolution of a number of matters relating to the restraint. Those will be the subject of a consent order which I will now make.

[3]                 Before the Commissioner files any application for forfeiture, Mr McRae and Mr Lange intend to pursue further negotiations in relation to at least one asset.

[4]                 To allow for that to take place, I adjourn remaining aspects of the on-notice application for restraining orders for mention at a telephone conference at 2.00 pm, 9 November 2020, Dunningham J.

[5]That mentions date allows counsel a period of six weeks for any negotiations.

[6]                 In the event that matters are not resolved between the parties so as to avoid the need for an application for forfeiture, the Commissioner is to file and serve any application for forfeiture by 23 October 2020.

Discharge of parts of without notice restraining order

[7]                 The without notice restraining order made on 21 December 2018 is varied to the extent that the following items of property identified in the order are discharged from its ambit namely:

(a)a blue Mitsubishi Mirage hatchback, registration LCB775, registered to Dylan Shannon Eyles; and

(b)a white Mitsubishi Mirage hatchback, registration JYK903, registered to Evan Alexander Eyles.

On-notice restraining order

[8]By consent I order:

(a)the property to which this order applies:

(i)is not to be disposed of, or dealt with, other than is provided for in the restraining order; and

(ii)is to be in the Official Assignee’s custody and control.

(b)the property to which this order applies is as follows:

(i)$6,000 in cash which was located at 5 North Street, Winchester on 23 May 2018;

(ii)5 North Street, Winchester, consisting of a 1,619 m2 property with a dwelling house, being Lot 2, Deposited Plan 50735 under record of title unique identifier CB29F/1105;

(iii)an adjoining 860 m2 property with a shed complex, being Lot 1, Deposited Plan 50735 under record of title unique identifier CB29F/1104;

(iv)7 North Street, Winchester, consisting of an 885 m2 property with an old Scout Hall, being Lot 94, Part Rural Section 4930 under record of title unique identifier CB724/14; and

(v)a red Mitsubishi Mirage hatchback, registration KRH383, registered to Ethan Craig Eyles.

Osborne J

Solicitors:

Gresson Dorman & Co., Timaru C J Lange, Barrister, Christchurch

Copy to: All Interested Parties