Commissioner of Police v Horopapara

[2024] NZHC 1552

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CIV-2020-463-048

[2024] NZHC 1552

IN THE MATTER

of an application pursuant to the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009

BETWEEN

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Applicant

AND

JOSEPH PATARA TE KOHIMARAMA HOROPAPARA

First Respondent

CHEYENNE ANDREA STAUNTON
Second Respondent

GARETH LUKE TABENER
Third Respondent

/Contd…

Hearing:

On the papers

Appearances:

A Gordon for Applicant

G Coleman for Seventh Respondent

Judgment:

13 June 2024

JUDGMENT OF LANG J

[on approval of settlement of claim against the seventh respondent]

This judgment was delivered by Justice Lang

On 13 June 2024 at 3.00 pm Pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:…………………………

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v HOROPAPARA [2024] NZHC 1552 [13 June 2024]

CLAYTON HERBERT GRANT

Fourth Respondent

TONY THOMAS HERBERT
Fifth Respondent

TINA JILIAN MURTAGH
Sixth Respondent

DUANE ARAPETA SIMON
Seventh Respondent

SHARNN KELVIN MAHUIKA
Eighth Respondent

THOMAS JOSEPH HOANI
Ninth Respondent

SHANE MAURICE HERBERT
Interested Party

CAROLE JOY WATSON
Interested Party

ANDREW ERUETI SKINNER
Interested Party

CHEYENNE ANDREA STAUNTON
Interested Party

RHODA-JAYNE BEAZLEY
Interested Party

ANZ BANK NEW ZEALAND LIMITED

Interested Party

CO-OPERATIVE BANK
Interested Party

WESTPAC NEW ZEALAND LTD
Interested Party

Solicitors/counsel:  Gordon Pilditch, Rotorua Lance Lawson, Rotorua Andrew Hill Law, Rotorua

P V Cornége, Barrister, Hamilton

[1]                 In this proceeding, the Commissioner of Police (the Commissioner) seeks asset and profit forfeiture orders against the respondents under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (the Act).

[2]                 The Commissioner and the seventh respondent, Mr Simon, have now resolved all outstanding issues between them. They seek the Court’s approval to the proposed settlement under s 95 of the Act.

The proposed settlement

[3]                 The parties have now agreed to settle the proceeding on the basis that an asset forfeiture order is made by consent in respect of Mr Simon’s 2014 Harley Davidson motorcycle, registration number A2TJJ. This is currently subject to a restraining order. In addition, the parties seek an order by consent directing the immediate sale of the motor vehicle. The sale proceeds are to be applied in satisfaction of the asset forfeiture order. Counsel consider that the motorcycle is likely to realise approximately $16,000.

[4]                 As part of the settlement, Mr Simon accepts that he unlawfully benefited from significant criminal activity, namely the cultivation and supply of cannabis. These are offences against the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. The unlawful benefit he received is the motorcycle that is now to be sold. Mr Simon is the sole owner of that motorcycle.

Decision

[5]                 I am satisfied that the proposed settlement is consistent with the objectives of the Act. These are to provide for the forfeiture of property derived from significant criminal activity and to eliminate the profit obtained by persons involved in such activity.1 The making of profit forfeiture orders also has the potential to deter significant criminal activity in the future.

[6]                 I therefore approve the proposed settlement under s 95 of the Act. I make orders by consent as sought in the joint memorandum of counsel dated 19 February 2024.

1      Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009, s 3(1)(a) and (2)(a).

[7]Costs are to lie where they fall.

Lang J