Commissioner of Police v Davison
[2025] NZHC 1703
•25 June 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE
CIV-2024-412-000035
[2025] NZHC 1703
UNDER the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 IN THE MATTER
of an application pursuant to sections 21, 24 and 25 of the Act
BETWEEN
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Applicant
AND
WENDY MAREE DAVISON
First Respondent
AND
CLINTON LEE FORMAN (deceased) Second Respondent
Hearing: On the papers Appearances:
R D Smith for Applicant
K Nicolson for First Respondent
Judgment:
25 June 2025
JUDGMENT OF OSBORNE J
Introduction
[1] The Commissioner of Police applies on notice under ss 21, 24 and 25 of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 for a restraining order over a property owned by the first respondent, and two motor vehicles, one each registered in the names of the respondents.
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v DAVISON [2025] NZHC 1703 [25 June 2025]
Statutory regime
[2] A restraining order may be made in relation to specific property if the court is satisfied that it has reasonable grounds to believe the property is tainted property.1 Property is “tainted property” if it has, wholly or in part, been acquired as a result of significant criminal activity or directly or indirectly derived from significant criminal activity.2 “Significant criminal activity” is an activity engaged in by a person that, if proceeded against as a criminal offence, would amount to offending that consists of or includes offences punishable by a maximum of five years’ imprisonment or more, or from which property, proceeds or benefits of a value of $30,000 or more have been directly or indirectly acquired or derived.3
[3] A court may make a restraining order relating to all or part of a respondent’s property if satisfied it has reasonable grounds to believe the respondent has unlawfully benefited from significant criminal activity.4 A person has unlawfully benefited from significant criminal activity if they have knowingly, directly or indirectly, derived a benefit from significant criminal activity, whether or not they were involved in that activity.5
Application made without notice
[4] Under s 22(1) of the Act, a court may determine an application for a restraining order without notice given to affected persons if satisfied there is a risk of the proposed restrained property being destroyed, disposed of, altered or concealed if notice were given.
[5] In this case the Court, on the application of the Commissioner, made a restraining order on a without notice application in April 2024.6
1 Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009, s 24.
2 Section 5—definition of “tainted property”.
3 Section 6.
4 Section 25(1).
5 Section 7.
6 Commissioner of Police v Davison [2023] NZHC 802.
Evidence
[6] The Commissioner’s application is supported by an affidavit of Detective Constable Kelsey Morgan, with exhibits.
[7] The police, on 18 April 2023, executed a search warrant at a property at Tarras, owned by the first respondent. Police found two mature cannabis plants and a quantity of white crystals. On the same day the police executed search warrants at two other properties associated with the respondents and found significant quantities of cannabis. Cannabis was also located in a vehicle registered in the name of Mr Forman.
[8] On interview Mr Forman acknowledged some involvement in selling cannabis. In interview Ms Davison confirmed she and Mr Forman were partners but denied any knowledge of Mr Forman’s involvement in a large-scale cannabis operation.
[9] Police have identified cash deposits into the bank accounts of Ms Davison and Mr Forman relating to the period from 2016 to 2024. Police have identified:
(a)over the financial years 2017 to 2024 a total of $313,359.40 in cash deposits was made into bank accounts operated by Mr Forman and/or Ms Davison ($156,575 into Mr Forman’s account and $156,784.40 to Ms Davison);
(b)there were 146 cash deposits into the personal bank accounts of Ms Davison, totalling $144,984.40 and $11,800 deposited into her business bank account;
(c)a number of the cash deposits had characteristics of money laundering, through splitting large sums of money into smaller sums, such as six deposits made on 23 March 2020 within a 15 minute period to a total of $8,000;
(d)there is evidence of money transfers from Mr Forman to enable Ms Davison to effect mortgage repayments;
(e)the vehicles subject of this application were purchased with monies within Ms Davison’s and Mr Forman’s bank accounts.
[10] Mr Forman has subsequently died. Mr Eagles, who initially represented Mr Forman, has advised the Court Mr Forman died intestate and that, with the modest value involved in his vehicle, there appears to be no prospect that anyone will apply for letters of administration.
Disclosure
[11] I am satisfied upon the evidence filed that there are reasonable grounds to believe the respondents unlawfully benefitted from significant criminal activity and that the property the subject of this application are tainted property.
[12] Through her counsel, Ms Davison has consented to the making of a restraining order. That consent is relevant to the property she owns and to the vehicle registered in her name.
[13]Mr Forman took no steps in the proceeding before his death.
Orders
[14]I order:
(a)the property identified in the application dated 5 May 2024 to which this order applies—
(i)is not to be disposed of, or dealt with, other than as provided for in the restraining order;
(ii)is to be in the Official Assignee’s custody and control;
(b)the respondents are required to allow the Official Assignee access to the motor vehicles for the purpose of inspections and/or valuations.
Hearing vacated
[15]I vacate the hearing scheduled for 1 July 2025.
Osborne J
Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Dunedin
Eagles Eagles & Redpath, Invercargill
Copy to:
K Nicolson, Barrister, Dunedin
0