Commissioner of Police v James

[2025] NZHC 2893

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CIV-2025-463-000049

[2025] NZHC 2893

UNDER

the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009, ss 43, 44 and 49

BETWEEN

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Applicant

AND

TRISTAN TURAE RANGITAPU JAMES

Respondent

Hearing:

On the papers

Counsel:

A J Gordon for the Applicant

No appearance for the Respondent

Judgment:

2 October 2025

JUDGMENT OF HARVEY J

This judgment is delivered by me on 2 October 2025 at 3PM pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

…………………………………………….

Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:

Gordon Pilditch, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Rotorua

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v JAMES [2025] NZHC 2893 [2 October 2025]

Introduction

[1]                 The Commissioner applies for type 1 assets forfeiture orders over $25,920 in cash found by Police in the Tristan James’ motel room on the grounds it is tainted property. The respondent has been served with the application but does not wish to participate in this proceeding.

Background

[2]                 The Police attended the Grand Treasure Motel after reports that Mr James had robbed someone. The Police attended Mr James motel room and, believing he was involved in drug dealing, searched the room. The Police discovered:

(a)494 grams of methamphetamine packaged into common drug dealing amounts (worth approximately $105,000);

(b)       $25,920 in cash;1

(c)snap lock bags;

(d)large amounts of rubber bands;

(e)electronic scales; and

(f)mobile phones belonging to Mr James and his partner, Ms Sullivan.

[3]                 Mr James was arrested and subsequently pleaded guilty to five charges of supplying methamphetamine, one charge of possessing methamphetamine for the purpose of supply, one charge of robbery, one charge of unlawful possession of ammunition and one charge of failing to carry out obligations in relation to a computer search. He was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment on 15 April 2024.

1      In an interview with police just after the cash was seized, Mr James told Police he only had $3,000 in cash.

Legal principles

[4]                 If I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the cash is “tainted property” then  I  must  make  the  type  1  assets  forfeiture  orders  sought.2  “Tainted property” means any property that is wholly or partly acquired as a result of, or directly or indirectly derived from, significant criminal activity.3 In turn, “significant criminal activity” would amount to offending punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least five years.4

[5]                 Inferences can be drawn from established criminal activity, disparity between assets and legitimate income, and a lack of credible explanation.5 The courts readily infer that criminal activity took place over a greater period of time than that proved beyond reasonable doubt in a criminal proceeding, and involvement in criminal activity and their unlawful benefit may be proved with circumstantial evidence such as the possession of large sums of unexplained cash.6

Discussion

[6]                 In summary, I am satisfied that the evidence adduced by the Commissioner establishes on the balance of probabilities that the cash is “tainted”. In particular, I consider it is likely the proceeds of dealing in methamphetamine.

[7]                 Mr James’ convictions above at [3] may be treated as conclusive proof he committed    that    offending.7  Suppling methamphetamine and possessing methamphetamine for the purpose of supply are both qualifying offences amounting to significant criminal activity. Mr James’ convictions show his involvement in drug dealing and this is also supported by the indicators of drug dealing found in his motel room: pre-packaged methamphetamine in dealing amounts, large amounts of cash, scales, zip lock bags and rubber bands. In addition, images were found on

2      Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009, s 50.

3      Section 5(1).

4      Section 6(1)(a).

5      Hayward v Commissioner of Police [2014] NZCA 624 at [39]–[42]; and Commissioner of Police v Dryland [2013] NZCA 247 at [34]–[39].

6      Hayward, above n 5; and Commissioner of Police v de Wys [2016] NZCA 634.

7      Evidence Act 2006, s 47.

Ms Sullivan’s phone which seemingly show Mr James packing methamphetamine into zip lock bags.

[8]                 Mr James’ declared total  gross  income  for the  three-year  period  between 1 April 2021 and 31 March 2023 was only $13,460. So, there does not appear to be any legitimate explanation for Mr James’ possession of $25,920 in cash. Mr James declined to participate in the examination order pursuant to s 107 and, as such, has provided no explanation of the source of the cash. Ms Sullivan also did not claim any interest in the cash.

[9]                 For these reasons, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the cash was derived and acquired through significant criminal activity. Therefore, the cash is tainted and this application should be granted.

Decision

[10]The application is granted and I make a type 1 assets forfeiture order over the

$25,920 recovered from Mr James’ room at the Grand Treasure Motel in Rotorua on 20 January 2023.

Harvey J