Commissioner of Police v Dowler-Munns

[2025] NZHC 2977

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2025-409-361

[2025] NZHC 2977

UNDER

the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009

IN THE MATTER

of an application pursuant to ss 21 and 24 of the Act

BETWEEN

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Applicant

AND

JOHNTAY TYRONE DOWLER-MUNNS

Respondent

Hearing:	On the papers
Appearances:	K South for Applicant
Judgment:	8 October 2025

JUDGMENT OF EATON J

[1]                 The Commissioner of Police applies for restraining orders under ss 21 to 24 of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (CPRA).

[2]The particular property sought to be restrained is:

(a)$16,995.00 cash seized on 27 March 2025, under the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 from a Lexus IS250 motor vehicle, as specified in the application.

[3]                 The application was initially brought against Mr Rushton. However, as recorded in the Minute of Associate Judge Lester on 5 September 2025, Mr Rushton’s counsel has confirmed his client had no interest in the funds subject to the proceeding,

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v DOWLER-MUNNS [2025] NZHC 2977 [8 October 2025]

but suggested Mr Dowler-Munns may do so. Accordingly, Mr Rushton was removed as a respondent and Mr Dowler-Munns was substituted. Mr Dowler-Munns has since been served with the amended application, but no papers in opposition have been filed, nor did he appear on 2 October when the matter was called in the List.

[4]                 The application is supported by an affidavit of Janelle Tania Kerr, an authorised officer attached to the Southern Asset Recovery Unit, within the Financial Crime Group of the New Zealand Police.

[5]                 Detective Kerr details  the  circumstances  giving  rise  to  charges  against Mr Rushton.   Detective Kerr deposes that as a result of a search of the vehicle      Mr Rushton was driving on 27 March 2025, cash was located in the vehicle ($16,995.00) as well as a cannabis bong, 156 grams of cannabis in a container, two cannabis grinders, snaplock bags and a pistol-shaped lighter.

[6]                 When interviewed, Mr Rushton stated he did not know who the cash belonged to, and that someone must have left it in his car. Through counsel, he says the cash belongs to Mr Dowler-Munns. Mr Rushton admitted the cannabis was his and admitted to having possession of it for the purpose of supply.

[7]                 The Commissioner contends Mr Rushton unlawfully benefited from significant criminal activity, particularly possession of cannabis for supply.1 The Commissioner submits the property identified at [2] is therefore tainted property.

Jurisdiction

[8]                 The application is brought in reliance on ss 24 and 25 of the CPRA. Section 24 provides that a Court may make a restraining order in respect of specific property “if the court is satisfied it has reasonable grounds to believe that [the property] is tainted property”.

[9]Tainted property means:

1      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6; maximum penalty eight years’ imprisonment.

(a)… any property that has, wholly or in part, been—

(i)acquired as a result of significant criminal activity; or

(ii)    directly or indirectly derived from significant criminal activity; and

(b)includes any property that has been acquired as a result of, or directly or indirectly derived from, more than 1 activity if at least 1 of those activities is a significant criminal activity

[10]              Section 25 provides that a Court may make a restraining order if it “is satisfied it has reasonable grounds to believe that the respondent has unlawfully benefited from significant criminal activity.”

[11]              “Significant criminal activity” is defined in s 6 of the CPRA as “an activity engaged in by a person that if proceeded against as a criminal offence would amount to offending … punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of 5 years or more; or from which property, proceeds or benefits of a value of [$30,000] or more have, directly or indirectly, been acquired or derived.”

Decision

[12]              While the application was initially advanced against Mr Rushton and the affidavit details how the cash was found in a vehicle with him at the same time as evidence of significant criminal activity, given Mr Rushton’s instructions, the lack of opposition or appearance from the respondent, and the surrounding context, I am satisfied there are reasonable grounds to believe the property identified  by  Detective Kerr is the respondent’s property, and that it is tainted property.

[13]It is appropriate that the orders sought by the Commissioner be granted.

Orders

[14]I order:

(a)The property to which this order applies:

(i)is not to be disposed of, or dealt with, other than as 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)$16,995.00 cash seized on 27 March 2025, under the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 from a Lexus IS250 motor vehicle, as specified in the application.

...................................................

Eaton J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitors, Christchurch