Commissioner of Police v Norton

[2016] NZHC 2330

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2014-404-1823 [2016] NZHC 2330

UNDER

the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act

2009

BETWEEN

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE Applicant

AND

CATHERINE NORTON Respondent

On the papers
Counsel:	M Harborow and H Clark for the Applicant M Pecotic for the Respondent E Lawrie for the Interested Parties
Judgment:	30 August 2016

JUDGMENT OF THOMAS J

This judgment was delivered by me on 30 August 2016 at 4.10 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date:………………………….

Solicitors/Counsel:

Meredith Connell, Auckland. M Pecotic, Auckland.

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v NORTON [2016] NZHC 2330 [30 August 2016]

[1]      In  2014,  Counties  Manukau  Police  initiated  an  investigation  into  the suspected sale and distribution of the class A controlled drug, methamphetamine. As a result of the investigation the respondent, Catherine Norton, was identified as a supplier of a significant quantity of methamphetamine.

[2]      A search warrant was executed at Ms Norton’s home address as a result of which certain items including cash were seized.  The Police then conducted further enquiries in respect of assets held by or under the control of Ms Norton.

[3]      As a result, in 2014, restraining orders were made in respect of cash, funds in two bank accounts in the name of Ms Norton’s two children, a motor vehicle, and a property at 8B Domain Street, Waiuku.

[4]      The restraining orders have been extended by consent since that time.  The Commissioner  then  made  an  application  for  civil  forfeiture  orders.    This  was opposed by Ms Norton.

[5]      In December 2015, Ms Norton pleaded guilty to one representative charge of supplying methamphetamine and one charge of possessing methamphetamine for sale.  She was sentenced to eight years and six months’ imprisonment.

[6]      The Commissioner,  Ms Norton,  and  interested  parties,  being Ms Norton’s two children and mother, have now agreed to settle the matter of civil forfeiture subject to the Court’s approval under s 95 of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act

2009 (the Act).

Analysis

[7]      Section 95 of the Act provides:

95  High  Court  must  approve  settlement between  Commissioner and other party

(1) The Commissioner may enter into a settlement with any person as to the property or any sum of money to be forfeited to the Crown.

(2) A settlement does not bind the parties unless the High Court approves it.

(3) The High Court must approve the settlement if it is satisfied that it is consistent with—

(a) the purposes of this Act; and

(b) the overall interests of justice.

[8]      The purpose of the Act is set out in s 3 as follows:

3 Purpose

(1) The primary purpose of this Act is to establish a regime for the forfeiture of property—

(a)  that  has  been  derived  directly  or  indirectly  from  significant criminal activity; or

(b)  that  represents  the  value  of  a  person’s  unlawfully  derived

income.

(2)  The  criminal  proceeds  and  instruments  forfeiture  regime  established under this Act proposes to—

(a) eliminate the chance for persons to profit from undertaking or being associated with significant criminal activity; and

(b) deter significant criminal activity; and

(c) reduce the ability of criminals and persons associated with crime or significant criminal activity to continue or expand criminal enterprise; and

(d) deal with matters associated with foreign restraining orders and foreign forfeiture orders that arise in New Zealand.

[9]      The proposed settlement does not involve the return of any restrained assets to Ms Norton.   It entails the forfeiture of approximately $215,000 to the Crown representing  property  derived  from  crime  as  well  as  the  value  of  Ms Norton’s unlawfully derived income.   There are relatively small amounts of money to be returned to Ms Norton’s mother and one of her daughters who is still a minor.

[10]     The Commissioner submits that the proposed settlement is a pragmatic one particularly given Ms Norton does not own any other assets and is serving a significant term of imprisonment.

[11]     I am satisfied having considered the matter that the proposed settlement is consistent with the purposes of the Act and the overall interests of justice.

Result

[12]     For these reasons, the settlement is approved pursuant to s 95 of the Act.  The orders sought as set out in the joint memorandum of counsel dated 18 August 2016

are made to give effect to the settlement.

Thomas J