Commissioner of Police v Dixon

[2015] NZHC 2200

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

CIV 2015-454-61 [2015] NZHC 2200

BETWEEN

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Applicant

AND

ROBERT WILLIAM DIXON Respondent

AND

LAUREN BRIDGETTE LANFEAR First Interested Party

Hearing:	10 September 2015
Counsel:	E M Fitzherbert for Applicant No Appearance by Respondent
Judgment:	11 September 2015

JUDGMENT OF BROWN J

[1]      When  this  matter  was  called  on  21 July 2015  the  respondent  Mr Dixon appeared and sought further time to enable him to instruct counsel.  The matter was adjourned to today and Ms FitzHerbert informs me that Justice MacKenzie indicated to Mr Dixon that it would be necessary for him to be prepared to proceed today.

[2]      There is no appearance today by Mr Dixon or by counsel instructed by him. Ms FitzHerbert has received no further communication from Mr Dixon nor has there been  any  communication  by  Mr  Dixon  to  the  Court.    In  those  circumstances Ms FitzHerbert requests that the Court make the orders sought in the application

dated 28 May 2015.

POLICE v DIXON [2015] NZHC 2200 [11 September 2015]

[3]      The   application   is   supported   by   an   affidavit   of   Detective   Senior Sergeant B A Murray  who  is  the  manager  of  the  Central  and  Southern  Asset Recovery Unit in the New Zealand Police and an affidavit of Mr G R Beattie, a financial investigator attached to the Central Asset Recovery Unit.

[4]      In short it is apparent from their evidence that Mr Dixon was involved in a “muling” operation involving the smuggling of cash.  In a video interview with the Police Mr Dixon admitted that he received money from a person he refused to name and that he was to take the money for a “run” to Wellington. A copy of the transcript of the video interview was annexed to the affidavit of Mr Beattie.

[5]      Detective Sergeant Murray expresses the view on the basis of the evidence that Mr Dixon was clearly acting as a cash smuggling “mule” for an unknown drug syndicate.

[6]      On the basis of the evidence adduced it is my view that the property specified in the application, namely cash to the value of $49,900, is tainted property and that Mr Dixon has unlawfully benefited from significant criminal activity.  Accordingly the  grounds  are  established  for  the  orders  sought  in  the  application  dated

28 May 2015.

[7]      An order is made in terms of the draft order lodged by the applicant.

Brown J

Solicitors:

Ben Vanderkolk & Associates, Crown Solicitors, Palmerston North