Commissioner of Police v Ellison

[2025] NZHC 2580

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2025-488-123

[2025] NZHC 2580

UNDER

Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009

BETWEEN

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Applicant

AND

JAIME WILLIAM ELLISON

First Respondent

JAY KENNETH ELLISON
Second Respondent

LYNDA MARIE PROUSE

Third Respondent

Hearing:	(On the papers)
Judgment:	5 September 2025

JUDGMENT OF VENNING J

[Without notice restraining order]

This judgment was delivered by me on 5 September 2025 at 3.00 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

Solicitors:           Meredith Connell, Auckland

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v ELLISON [2025] NZHC 2580 [5 September 2025]

[1]        The Commissioner seeks without notice restraining and further orders against the respondents.

[2]        The first and second respondents are brothers. The third respondent is their mother. The first respondent was deported from Australia as a 501 deportee having been convicted of a number of offences, including drug offending. He arrived in New Zealand in May 2019. His brother, the second respondent and mother returned to New Zealand in November 2020. All three were convicted for drug offending in 2022, including the possession of cannabis for supply for cannabis found at the family home.

[3]        In addition, the first and second respondents face further charges for the continued supply of  cannabis  relating  to  cannabis  found  in  their  possession  on 8 January 2025 and 25 February 2025. Further, there is phone data which supports an inference of supply during 2024. Although the third respondent does not face any further charges the Commissioner has identified that she has received in excess of

$220,000 in the form of unexplained deposits in her bank account between 5 June 2019 and 4 March 2025. I accept that an inference can be drawn at this stage that she had involvement or at least police knowledge of significant criminal activity and has derived an unlawful benefit from it.

[4]        Having regard to the evidence of Jason Hannah, Marny Cook, Luke Bradshaw and Arvin Brodrick there are reasonable grounds to believe that the respondents have unlawfully benefited from significant criminal activity. Further, there are reasonable grounds to believe that the property identified in the application is the property of the respondents. I also accept that given the movable nature of the property there is a risk that the proposed restrained property may be destroyed, disposed of, altered or concealed. The majority of the property includes property that can be readily disposed of, moved or hidden so that it is appropriate the application be initially determined on a without notice basis. In addition, again on the evidence in relation to the signet ring and gold bracelet the property appears to be tainted property.

[5]        For the above reasons there will be orders in accordance with those sought in the application dated 4 September 2025 at para 1(a) to 1(c)(iii).

[6]        Section 39 of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 applies to the duration of the orders.

Venning J