Commissioner of Police v Nevard

[2025] NZHC 2499

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE

CIV-2025-412-57

[2025] NZHC 2499

UNDER

Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009

IN THE MATTER

of an application pursuant to sections 33 and 35(e)(v) of the Act

BETWEEN

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Applicant

AND AND

AND

NICOLA ANN NEVARD

First Respondent

ARON GAY MURTAGH
Second Respondent

ANZ BANK

Interested Party

Hearing:	28 August 2025
Counsel:	R D Smith for Applicant
Judgment:	29 August 2025

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE LESTER

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v NEVARD [2025] NZHC 2499 [29 August 2025]

[1]    The Commissioner of Police (the Commissioner) has made two applications. The first is for an asset forfeiture order in relation to a property in Dunedin described in the application  dated 21 August 2025.  The second is an application  also dated  21 August 2025 for a sale order in relation to that Dunedin property.

[2]    An affidavit in support by Detective Morgan has been filed. Detective Morgan recounts her communications with the first respondent, Ms Nevard.

[3]    In an email of 29 July 2025, Ms Nevard said: “We are not going to appeal on the 28 August”.

[4]    Detective Morgan recounts a telephone conversation with Ms Nevard on Monday 11 August 2025 where Ms Nevard consented to the forfeiture of the property. Detective Morgan   transcribed   the   statement   and    visited    Ms Nevard    on    14 August 2025 when Ms Nevard read and signed her statement consenting to the forfeiture. That signed statement is produced to the Court. Prior to her oral consent given on the telephone call, and the signing of the statement, Ms Nevard was given the opportunity to speak to a lawyer, but she declined.

[5]    As  regards  the  second  respondent,  Ms Murtagh,  at  a  meeting  held  on 14 August 2025, she confirmed to Detective Morgan that she had no financial interest in the property and consented to its forfeiture. Again, Ms Murtagh signed a statement consenting to the forfeiture of the property (also produced) and again, Ms Murtagh was given the opportunity to take legal advice but declined to do so.

[6]    Both respondents have recorded in writing that they consent to the forfeiture of the property which means that pursuant to s 20(1)(g) of the Senior Courts Act 2016 I have jurisdiction to make the orders sought.

[7]    Accordingly, on a consent basis, there is an order in terms of paragraphs 1 and 2 of the application for an asset forfeiture order dated 21 August 2025 and in terms of paragraphs 1(a) to 1(d) of the application for a sale order dated 21 August 2025.

Associate Judge Lester

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, RPB Law, Dunedin

Copy to:

First and Second Respondents Interested party