Commissioner of Police v Catley

[2018] NZHC 73

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2015-404-002310 [2018] NZHC 73

UNDER

The Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009

BETWEEN

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE Applicant

AND

DARYN BRUCE CATLEY First Respondent

STEPHEN JAMES HARLAND Second Respondent

Hearing:	On the papers
Counsel:	M Harborow and S McDaid for Applicant ME Goodwin for First Respondent RA Harrison for Second Respondent
Judgment:	8 February 2018

JUDGMENT OF DOWNS J

This judgment was delivered by me on Thursday, 8 February 2018 at 4 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:

Meredith Connell, Auckland.

ME Goodwin, Auckland. RA Harrison, Blenheim.

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v CATLEY [2018] NZHC 73 [8 February 2018]

[1]      Mr Catley is serving a term of nine years’ imprisonment for offences contrary to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 and Arms Act 1983. Mr Harland is serving a term of six years and eight months’ imprisonment in relation to one charge under the Misuse of  Drugs Act.   All  offending  was  gang-related.    The  Commissioner  of  Police,

Mr Catley and Mr Harland seek approval to settle related action under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009.  Settlements of this nature must be approved by the High Court.  And, the Court must approve settlement if satisfied settlement is consistent with the purposes of the Act and the overall interests of justice.1

[2]      It is proposed Mr Catley and Mr Harland would forfeit property to the value of approximately $200,000; Mr Harland would be returned not more than $2,941 seized from him on 15 September; and the Commissioner’s application for profit forfeiture orders against both men would be abandoned.

[3]      I am satisfied settlement is consistent with the purposes of the Act and the overall interests of justice.   Settlement recognises both men derived benefits from significant criminal activity, owned tainted property, or both.  However, settlement also recognises the full extent of the Commissioner’s claims may not have been established. More particularly, it is possible Mr Harland’s contention the $2,941 cash seized  by Police  was  the  proceeds  of  a  sale  of  a  motorbike  he  had  purchased legitimately.  In other words, unconnected to criminal offending.

[4]      Orders as per paragraphs 8.1 and 8.2 of the joint memorandum of counsel.

……………………………..

Downs J

1      Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009, s 95(3).