Commissioner of Police v Needham
[2025] NZHC 71
•5 February 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA AHURIRI ROHE
CIV-2021-441-40
[2025] NZHC 71
UNDER THE Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 IN THE MATTER OF
Applications under s 43, 44, 49 & 50
BETWEEN
THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Applicant
AND
LUKE NEEDHAM
First Respondent
AND
TERRY ANTHONY WESTON
Second Respondent
Hearing: On the Papers Counsel:
F E Cleary for Applicant
Judgment:
5 February 2025
JUDGMENT OF CHURCHMAN J
Background
[1] By application dated 12 February 2024 the Commissioner of Police (the applicant) sought forfeiture of the following property:
(a)$164,080 in cash, along with any interest accrued, seized from an address in Napier on 3 March 2021 (the bedroom cash);
(b)$24,550 in cash, along with any interest accrued, seized from a Holden Commodore driven by the second responded on 25 September 2021 (the September 2021 cash); and
POLICE v NEEDHAM & WESTON [2025] NZHC 71 [5 February 2025]
(c)$36,000 in cash, along with any interest accrued, seized from a Holden Commodore driven by the second respondent on 18 June 2022 (the June 2022 cash).
[2] The applicant submits that the three amounts of cash set out above (collectively the Property) was more likely than not to have been wholly or in part derived from significant criminal activity, namely dealing of cannabis or methamphetamine or both.
[3] The matter came before Gwyn J on 6 May 2024 and, as a consequence of the lack of active response from either of the respondents, the Court directed that counsel for the applicant was to file a memorandum setting out the legal and evidential basis upon which it was submitted that a forfeiture order could be made. Counsel for the applicant has now filed that memorandum.
Facts
[4] Cooke J on 15 March 2022 determined an opposed restraining order application in respect of the Property.1 It is not necessary to set out in detail the factual analysis taken by Cooke J but it can be summarised as noting that the first and second respondents both had links to an address that was searched by the police in March 2021. The first respondent’s partner resided at the address and the second respondent lived in a garage at the address at the time of the police search the first respondent’s vehicle was parked in the driveway and the search of it located a large number of items consistent with active involvement in methamphetamine and/or cannabis dealing.
[5] On a search of the house, in the first respondent’s partners bedroom drawers a shoebox containing $164,080 cash was found. Some of the cash was divided into amounts of $30,000 each being packed into five individual vacuum sealed bags with two other snap lock bags containing the balance.
[6] A subsequent search executed on the first respondent’s home found methamphetamine pipes, zip lock bags and other drug related paraphernalia. CCTV
1 The Commissioner of Police v Needham [2022] NZHC 470.
videos which had recorded activities at that location, disclosed the first respondent supplying his partner a glass pipe of methamphetamine to consume, weighing cannabis in scales, and selling what appeared to be a bag of cannabis to a male associate.
[7] In relation to the September 2021 cash, on 25 September 2021 the second respondent was observed driving at speeds in excess of 145 kilometres per hour. He was pursued by police and eventually stopped when his vehicle was ‘spiked’. At the time of his arrest, he had a methamphetamine pipe up his sleeve containing fresh, unused methamphetamine as well as scales and a cell phone in his vehicle together with $24,550 in cash.
Legal principles
[8] The Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (the Act) provides a regime for the confiscation and forfeiture of certain property where a causal nexus between the acquisition of that property and significant criminal activity can be established. The standard of proof with respect to the criteria for the various forfeiture orders is that of the balance of probabilities.
[9] Section 50 of the Act provides that if the High Court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that specific property is tainted property the Court must make a type 1 assets forfeiture order in respect of that specific property.
[10] The concept of tainted property is defined by s 5 of the Act as meaning property that has wholly or in part been;
(i)acquired as a result of significant criminal activity;
(ii)directly or indirectly derived from significant criminal activity.
[11] The concept ‘significant criminal activity’ is defined by s 6 of the Act as meaning an activity engaged in by a person that, if proceeded against as a criminal offence would amount to offending:
(a)that consists of, or includes, one of more offences punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of five years or more; or
(b)from which property, proceeds or benefits of a value of $30,000 or more have, directly or directly been acquired or derived.
[12] Both of those definitions of ‘significant criminal activity’ are relevant in the present case, as methamphetamine dealing has a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and cannabis dealing has a maximum penalty of eight years imprisonment.
[13] Neither of the respondents had any known legitimate source of income that could plausibly explain the quantum of the cash located in their possession.
[14] The first respondent pleaded guilty to charges of possession of methamphetamine and possession of cannabis in relation to the items found at his residence. The second respondent has previous convictions for both the possession and supply of cannabis and methamphetamine, and he also pleaded guilty to drug related charges arising from the items found in his possession at the time of the police search.
[15] I am satisfied to the standard of the balance of probabilities that the inevitable inference to be drawn from these facts is that the three amounts of cash collectively described as ‘the Property’ are likely to be proceeds of methamphetamine dealing or cannabis dealing or both by the first and second respondents.
[16] As the test for forfeiture in the Act is met, I conclude that the Property is tainted and make the forfeiture orders sought.
Churchman J
Solicitors:
Elvidge & Partners, Napier for Respondents
0