Commissioner of Police v Hastie-Sonnenberg

[2024] NZHC 101

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE

CIV-2023-412-122

[2024] NZHC 101

UNDER

the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009

IN THE MATTER

of an application pursuant to ss 43, 44 and 49 of the Act

BETWEEN

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Applicant

AND

NATHAN GEORGE HASTIE- SONNENBERG

First Respondent

AND

JASMINE LOUISE DICKENS-PRATT

Second Respondent

Hearing (by telephone conference):

5 February 2024

Appearances:

R D Smith for Applicant

No appearance for Respondents

Judgment:

7 February 2024

JUDGMENT OF OSBORNE J

[1]    The Commissioner of Police applies under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (the Act) for an asset forfeiture order in relation to a total cash sum of

$29,240 (the cash).

[2]    The cash was seized by police from a motor vehicle on 28 November 2022. The first respondent, Nathan Hastie-Sonnenberg was the registered owner of the vehicle and was seated in the driver’s seat. The second respondent, Jasmine Dickens-

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v HASTIE-SONNENBERG [2024] NZHC 101 [7 February 2024]

Pratt, was seated in the front passenger seat. Neither respondent has opposed the application.

[3]    Ms Dickens-Pratt has provided an affidavit in which she deposes that at the time the cash was seized the police also seized a quantity of the class A drug methamphetamine. She confirms that the cash represented the proceeds of the sale of methamphetamine.

The Commissioner’s evidence

[4]    The Commissioner initially filed evidence from John Galliven, a specialist investigator attached to the Southern Asset Recovery Unit, Financial Crime Group of the New Zealand Police. Mr Galliven provided the evidence as to the circumstances in which the cash was seized. He referred to a number of items located in the vehicle at the same time including two sets of electronic scales; various drug utensils; a notepad containing a list of names and monetary amounts (described as a “tick list”), two snap-lock bags containing 57.82 grams of methamphetamine and five cell phones. The methamphetamine was 11 times the presumptive amount for the supply of methamphetamine. Analysis of the cell phone of Ms Dickens-Pratt revealed messages referring to the availability of methamphetamine for sale.

[5]    Mr Galliven referred also in detail to an analysis of the financial position of both respondents and recorded that his preliminary analysis had not identified any legitimate expectation for the existence of the cash in the respondents’ possession.

The application

[6]    The Commissioner applies under sub-pt 3 of pt 2 of the Act. In particular the Commissioner applies under s 49 of the Act for a type 1 asset forfeiture order.

Discussion

[7]    I am satisfied, having regard  to  the  evidence  of  both  Mr  Galliven  and  Ms Dickens-Pratt, that the cash is tainted property in that it was wholly or in part acquired as a result of significant criminal activity.

Order

[8]    I order that cash totalling $29,420 located by Police on 28 November 2022 during a search of a Volkswagen Golf motor vehicle driven by Nathan George Hastie- Sonnenberg, accompanied by a front seat passenger, Jasmine Louise Dickens-Pratt, vests in the Crown absolutely and is to be in the Official Assignee’s custody and control.

Restraining order application

[9] The Commissioner had also filed an application for a restraining order. The need for that is overtaken by the order at [8] above. I accordingly dismiss the restraining order application with no order for the costs of that application.

Osborne J

Solicitors:

R P Bates, Crown Solicitor, Dunedin