Commissioner of Police v Fakaosilea

[2019] NZHC 416

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2017-404-002698

[2019] NZHC 416

BETWEEN

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Applicant

AND

SELAIMA FAKAOSILEA

First Respondent

CALLAN JAMES SCOTT HUGHES
Second Respondent

KANE MICHAEL McARLEY

Third Respondent

Hearing:	On the papers
Judgment:	12 March 2019

JUDGMENT OF DOWNS J

This judgment was delivered by me on Tuesday, 12 March 2019 at 3 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Auckland.

Copy to: Second Respondent.

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v FAKAOSILEA [2019] NZHC 416 [12 March 2019]

[1]                 The Commissioner of Police, Ms Selaima Fakaosilea, Mr Callan Hughes and Mr Kane McArley ask the Court to approve their settlement under s 95 of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009.

[2]                 On 12 June 2016, Police seized 501 kilograms of methamphetamine in Northland. Police arrested seven people, including Ms Fakaosilea. Police later commenced a second investigation. It led to Mr Hughes’ arrest. He was a driving a Mercedes (JFD36) and in possession of $57,141.28 cash.

[3]                 On 13 June 2018, Mr Hughes pleaded guilty to 11 charges of supplying methamphetamine and other offences. Mr Hughes received a sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment, with a minimum period of half that. Ms Fakaosilea and Mr McArley were also convicted of serious  drugs offending.  Ms  Fakaosilea was  sentenced to 14 and a half years’ imprisonment; Mr McArley 15 years’ imprisonment.

[4]                 Little property was seized in relation to the defendants beyond that described, a point animating the proposed settlement. Mr Hughes agrees the cash should be forfeited. So too the proceeds of the sale of the Mercedes after $1,000 is returned to him. Mr Hughes abandons all claims he may have under the Act or otherwise, in relation to any restrained property. Similarly, Mr Hughes acknowledges the Mercedes was held on his behalf even though it was registered in another’s name. In return, the Commissioner agrees to abandon its profit forfeiture action.

[5]                 I am satisfied settlement is consistent with the Act’s purposes and the overall interests of justice. The outcome is realistic.

[6]I make the orders sought.

……………………………..

Downs J