Commissioner of Police v Harmer-Elers

[2025] NZHC 481

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WAIHŌPAI ROHE

CIV-2025-425-19

[2025] NZHC 481

UNDER

the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009

IN THE MATTER OF

an application pursuant to ss 22, 24 and 25

BETWEEN

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Applicant

AND

TUROIRANGI ATAREA HARMER- ELERS

First Respondent

MADISON BERNADETTE ISOBELL SARAH MANUEL

Second Respondent

AND

WESTPAC NEW ZEALAND LIMITED

Interested Party

Hearing:	On the papers
Counsel:	S N McKenzie for Applicant
Judgment:	12 March 2025

JUDGMENT OF MANDER J

[Without notice application for restraining orders]

[1]                 The Commissioner of Police (the Commissioner) has filed a without notice application for restraining orders against Turoirangi Harmer-Elers and Madison Manuel, respectively the first and second respondents. The orders are sought in respect of the following property:

(a)The real property at 7 Kana Street, Mataura, Gore, registered in the name of Turoirangi Harmer-Elers, with a rateable value of $355,000

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v HARMER-ELERS [2025] NZHC 481 [12 March 2025]

(Record of Title SLB2/177, Southland Registry, Lot 1, Deposited Plan 6495), excluding the interests of Westpac Bank as mortgagee pursuant to registered mortgage 10367346.3; and

(b)a 1957 Ford Custom Line Saloon vehicle, registration number CA3232 (the 1957 Ford). This vehicle is registered to Madison Manuel and valued at approximately $68,000; and

(c)a 1956 Ford Custom Line Saloon vehicle, registration number RATS4D (the 1956 Ford). The vehicle is registered to a Mr Bill Elers and valued at approximately $68,000.

(collectively “the property”)

[2]                 The Commissioner maintains the property the subject of the application is tainted property, having wholly or in part been acquired as a result of significant criminal activity, or directly or indirectly derived from significant criminal activity.1 The Commissioner alleges that Mr Harmer-Elers and Ms Manuel have benefited directly and indirectly from significant criminal activity, namely:

(a)the cultivation of a prohibited plant, namely cannabis, pursuant to s 9(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. The maximum penalty for such offending is seven years’ imprisonment;

(b)the sale of a Class C controlled drug, namely cannabis, pursuant to     s 6(1)(e) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. The maximum penalty for such offending is eight years’ imprisonment;

(c)participation in an organised criminal group, pursuant to s 98A(1)(c) of the Crimes Act 1961.  The maximum penalty for such offending  is  10 years’ imprisonment;

1      Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009, s 5, definition of “tainted property”, para (a).

(d)demanding with intent to steal, pursuant to s 239(2) of the Crimes Act 1961. The maximum penalty for such offending is seven years’ imprisonment;

(e)obtaining by deception, pursuant to s 240(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1961. The maximum penalty for such offending is seven years’ imprisonment; and

(f)receiving, pursuant to s 246(1) of the Crimes Act 1961. The maximum penalty for such offending is seven years’ imprisonment.

[3]                 An affidavit in support of the Commissioner’s application has been sworn and filed by Mr John Galliven. He is a specialist investigator attached to the Southern Asset Recovery Unit of the Financial Crime Group of the New Zealand Police, tasked with investigating individuals who have accumulated wealth or assets as a result of their involvement in significant criminal activity. He has deposed to investigations by the Invercargill Police into the commercial cultivation of cannabis by members of the Mataura Mongrel Mob, including the president of that chapter, Mr Harmer-Elers, and the wounding and assault of persons involved in these activities. Mr Galliven has carried out a financial analysis of Mr Harmer-Elers and Ms Manuel’s financial affairs and the acquisition of the 1955 and 1956 Ford vehicles. His analysis of banking records, cash transactions and property dealings has led him to conclude that the property the subject of the Commissioner’s application is tainted.

[4]                 Having read Mr Galliven’s affidavit, I am satisfied there are reasonable grounds to believe that the property is tainted property, having been acquired as a result of significant criminal activity, or having been directly or indirectly derived from, significant criminal activity of the type identified in Mr Galliven’s affidavit.2 I am further satisfied there is a risk the proposed restrained property may be destroyed, disposed of, altered, or concealed if notice were to be given to any or all the persons who have an interest in the proposed restrained property, including Mr Harmer-Elers and Ms Manuel.3

2      Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act, s 24.

3      Section 22.

[5]                 Accordingly, I grant the Commissioner’s without notice application for restraining orders and direct that the property specified in [1] above:

(a)is not to be disposed of, or dealt with, other than as is provided for in this restraining order;

(b)is to be under the Official Assignee’s custody and control;

(c)that the respondents are required to allow the Official Assignee access to the property for the purpose of inspections and/or valuations; and

(d)that members of the police and/or the Official Assignee’s staff or agents are authorised to go onto and enter any property for which there are reasonable grounds to suspect any motor vehicles covered by the application may be located or stored, to locate and seize those motor vehicles and any associated keys.

Solicitors:

PRLaw, Invercargill