Commissioner of Police v Chase

[2018] NZHC 456

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2011-404-7206

[2018] NZHC 456

UNDER

The Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009

BETWEEN

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Applicant

AND

CHRISTOPHER ARTHUR ROGER CHASE

Respondent

Hearing:

On the papers

Appearances:

M Harborow and S McDaid for Applicant R Mansfield for Respondent

S Wimsett for Ms Chase

Judgment:

19 March 2018

JUDGMENT OF LANG J

[on approval of settlement]

This judgment was delivered by me on 19 March 2018 at 3.30 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date……………

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v CHASE [2018] NZHC 456 [19 March 2018]

[1]    In this proceeding the Commissioner of Police seeks forfeiture orders under the Criminal Procedure (Recovery) Act 2009 (the Act) against Mr Chase. The Commissioner has now reached agreement with Mr Chase and an interested party, Ms Raechelle Chase, regarding the orders that should be made. They therefore seek the Court’s approval of the settlement under s 95 of the Act.

Background

[2]    Mr Chase faced charges in this Court relating to the importation and supply of Class C analogue drugs. Following a lengthy trial by jury, Mr Chase was found guilty in August 2015 on 14 of those charges. He was subsequently sentenced to ten years imprisonment.1 Ms Chase, Mr Chase’s former wife, did not face any charges as a result of the police investigation that led to the charges being laid against her former husband.

[3]    The evidence given at trial revealed that Mr Chase was importing consignments of controlled drug analogues in powder form. He then arranged for the powder to be pressed into pills and sold through distributors. The sales were conducted through a company trading as “London Underground”. Mr Chase was the controlling force behind that company.

[4]    When sentencing Mr Chase, Woodhouse J observed that the total revenue derived from the sale of the pills by London Underground was approximately

$24 million.2 The enterprise therefore had the potential to produce very considerable

profits.

[5]    Mr Chase and his co-defendants appealed against their conviction, but in a decision delivered late last year, the Supreme Court dismissed Mr Chase’s appeal.3

[6]    The Commissioner now holds restrained property having a total value of approximately $740,000. This comprises funds produced by the sale of properties in

1       R v Chase [2015] NZHC 317.

2 At [20].

3      R v Cameron & Ors [2017] NZSC 89.

Coatesville and Fiji, together with other cash found during the police investigation. It also comprises items of men’s jewellery having a value of approximately $12,400.

The proposed settlement

[7]    The proposed settlement envisages the sum of $175,000 being released to  Ms Chase. The balance of the restrained property would be forfeited to the Crown.

Decision

[8]    I am satisfied that the proposed settlement recognises the primary purpose of the Act, which is to provide for forfeiture of property derived directly or indirectly from significant criminal activity, or property representing the value of a person’s unlawfully derived income.4 The proposed settlement will result in the Crown retaining property having a total value of approximately $565,000. Ms Chase would receive the sum of $175,000.

[9]    In my view, the settlement adequately recognises the prospect that the Court might grant relief to Ms Chase in relation to property that could be described as relationship property. The proposed settlement will also produce certainty for all parties, and remove the need for determination of the present proceeding.

Result

[10]   I approve the proposed settlement under s 95 of the Act, and make orders in terms of s 6.1 of the joint memorandum of counsel dated 6 March 2018.

Lang J

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, Auckland Counsel:

R Mansfield, Barrister, Auckland S Wimsett, Barrister, Auckland

4      Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009, s 3(1)(a) and (b).