Commissioner of Police v Hadfield

[2021] NZHC 3506

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV 2021-404-002261

[2021] NZHC 3506

UNDER

Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009

BETWEEN

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Applicant

AND

AROHA RANGIMARIE HADFIELD

Respondent

Hearing:

16 December 2021

Appearances:

R M Gibbs for the Applicant

No appearance by the Defendant

Judgment:

16 December 2021

JUDGMENT OF VAN BOHEMEN J

This judgment was delivered by me on 16 December 2021 at 4.00pm Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

…………………………

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:

Crown Solicitor (Meredith Connell), Auckland Copy to the Respondent

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v HADFIELD [2021] NZHC 3506 [16 December 2021]

Introduction

[1]On 24 November 2021, the Commissioner of Police filed an application for:

(a)a profits forfeiture order; or, in the alternative,

(b)an assets forfeiture order or, in the alternative,

(c)a restraining order

against Aroha Rangimarie Hadfield pursuant to the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009.

[2]        The application arises out of an investigation into the unlawful removal of a shipping container from a Customs Controlled Area at the Ports of Auckland on 1 July2021 and the recovery of $90,050.00 in cash (the Cash) on 11 July 2019 from the home of Ms Hadfield, who had been employed as an Operations Controller at the container terminal at the Port.

[3]        Following the Customs investigation, Ms Hadfield was charged with and pleaded guilty to offences under ss 86(1)(a) of the Customs and Excise Act 2018, in relation to the unauthorised removal of goods from a Customs Controlled Area, and  s 249(1)(a) of the Crimes Act1961 for accessing a computer system for a dishonest purpose.

[4]        Filed with the Commissioner’s application were unsworn  affidavits  dated  23 November 2021 by Detective Nicholas Davenport, Senior Customs Officer Tui Rapana; and Customs Technical Specialist Christie Thompson (the Affidavits). The Affidavits were accompanied by a memorandum of counsel for the Commissioner of the same date seeking a direction that the Affidavits be accepted for filing because the constraints of the COVID-19 restrictions have prevented the affidavits being sworn or affirmed.

[5]        As requested, I direct that the Affidavits be accepted for filing in accordance with r 9.73(4) of the High Court Rules 2016, I direct that Affidavits be accepted for filing.

[6]        In an affidavit sworn on 3 December 2021, Detective Davenport says he served the application and the Affidavits personally on Ms Hadfield on 25 November 2021 and advised her that the application was to be called in the High Court on 16 December 2021. Ms Hadfield told the Detective she did not oppose “the Commissioner’s application for the restraint and forfeiture of the cash seized from my home” and did not wish to appeal at the call on 16 December 2021 and said she was happy for future documents to be served on her by email. Ms Hadfield signed a statement to that effect in Detective’s notebook. A copy of the signed statement was exhibited to the Detective’s affidavit.

[7]        The Affidavits have since been sworn – on 10 December 2021 by Ms Rapana and Ms Thompson and on 13 December by Detective Davenport – and filed in Court. Copies of the sworn Affidavits have been emailed to Ms Hadfield, as confirmed by an affidavit sworn by Helena Rose Santos on 15 December 2021.

[8]        The Commissioner’s application  was  called  at  the  Duty  Judge  List  on  16 December 2021. Ms Hadfield was not represented.

[9]        Ms Gibbs, counsel for the Commissioner, submitted that there was a sufficient basis for the Court to make the assets forfeiture order in the Commissioner’s application in respect of the Cash and confirmed that, if that order was made, the Commissioner would not pursue the profits forfeiture order.

[10]      On the basis of the Affidavits and the information in the further affidavit of Detective Davenport, I am satisfied that the Cash is tainted property in terms of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act.

Order

[11]      Accordingly, I make the assets forfeiture order set out in the Commissioner’s application.

G J van Bohemen J