Commissioner of Police v Noble

[2024] NZHC 1498

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TAURANGA MOANA ROHE

CIV-2018-470-58

[2024] NZHC 1498

UNDER

the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009

BETWEEN

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Applicant

AND

HIRA CYRIL NOBLE

First Respondent

LUANA MAREE NOBLE
Second Respondent

TOM HIRA HENARE NOBLE

Third Respondent

Hearing:

On the papers

Counsel:

R W Jenson for Applicant

M S King for Third Respondent

Judgment:

7 June 2024

JUDGMENT OF LANG J

[approval of settlement]

This judgment was delivered by Justice Lang On 7 June 2024 at 11.00 am

Pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date:…………………………

Solicitors/counsel:

Pollett Legal Ltd, Tauranga

W T Nabney, Barrister, Tauranga M S King, Barrister, Tauranga

Copy to: H C Noble

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v NOBLE [2024] NZHC 1498 [7 June 2024]

[1]    In 2017, the police began investigating the manufacture and distribution of non-approved psychoactive products, commonly known as synthetic cannabis, in the Bay of Plenty region. The police also investigated money laundering that was associated with this activity.

[2]    The investigation revealed that Mr Hira Noble and his wife, Luana Noble, were involved in an operation in which plant material sprayed with a non-approved psychoactive substance was on-sold as synthetic cannabis.  The third  respondent,  Mr Tom Noble, is Mr Hira Noble’s father. He became involved in the distribution of the finished product. He acted as a courier for his son and delivered synthetic cannabis to multiple addresses. He collected cash for the synthetic cannabis and handed most of this to his son.

[3]    In this proceeding, the Commissioner seeks assets and profit forfeiture orders against the respondents under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (the Act). The Commissioner has now reached a settlement with Mr Tom Noble. They now seek the Court’s approval to the settlement under s 95 of the Act.

The proposed settlement

[4]    The proposed settlement arrangement involves Mr Tom Noble consenting to a profit forfeiture order equivalent to the sale proceeds of two motor vehicles and one motorcycle that he owns. The motorcycle and one of the motor vehicles have already been sold and the proceeds of sale are held by the Official Assignee. The second motor vehicle is currently in the possession of Mr Tom Noble, but he has agreed to surrender that vehicle to the Official Assignee on 12 June 2024 so that it can be sold.

Analysis

[5]    The Commissioner accepts that a profit forfeiture order for an amount greater than the value of the two vehicles and the motorcycle is unlikely to bear fruit. These are the only assets Mr Tom Noble owns that can be applied towards satisfaction of the order.

[6]    I accept that settlement of the proceeding in this way is fully consistent with the objectives of the Act, which 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.

[7]    I therefore approve the proposed settlement under s 95 of the Act. I make orders by consent as sought in para 1 of the Joint Memorandum of Counsel dated 6 June 2024.

[8]Costs are to lie where they fall.

Lang J

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