Commissioner of Police v Pitman

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2023-488-75

[2024] NZHC 3045

UNDER Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009

BETWEEN

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Applicant

AND

WATARINI TEKAUHOA BROOKLYN PITMAN

Respondent

Hearing: On the papers at Auckland

Judgment:

18 October 2024

JUDGMENT (NO.2) OF POWELL J

[Correction of accidental omission – Rule 11.10 High Court Rules 2016]

This judgment was delivered by me on 18 October 2024 at 3.30 pm.
Pursuant to R 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

…………………..
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v WATARINI TEKAUHOA BROOKLYN PITMAN [2024] NZHC 3045 [18
October 2024]

[1] On 19 March 2024 I issued judgment approving a settlement between the Commissioner of Police and Mr Pitman.1 Under the settlement Mr Pitman agreed to forfeit all but two of a list of assets. Pursuant to the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009.

[2] The Commissioner has now brought to my attention that the list of forefeited assets set out in my judgment omitted one of the restrained assets covered by the settlement. Specifically, as well as the assets listed at [7] of the judgment, the following item should also have been include: a small gold nugget, seized by Police from the Holden Commodore at 2/39A Second Avenue on 22 August 2023, owned by Mr Pitman (“the small gold nugget”).

[3] Having considered the signed settlement agreement and my judgment it is clear the judgment contains a clerical error arising from an accidental omission pursuant to r 11.10(1)(a) of the High Court Rules 2016, and as such is appropriately corrected pursuant to r 11.10(2)(a). There can be no doubt that the small gold nugget would have been included in the judgment as one of the forfeited items. The small gold nugget is therefore deemed to have been included in the judgment at paragraph [7](xiA), and leave is therefore given for the Commissioner to reseal the order approving settlement assets of forfeiture and further orders so as to include the small gold nugget in the terms noted at [2] above.

[4]There is no issue as to costs.

Powell J

1 Commissioner of Police v Pitman [2024] NZHC 594.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Commissioner of Police v Pitman, the Commissioner of Police sought to recover criminal proceeds under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009. The dispute arose from a settlement agreement whereby Mr Pitman agreed to forfeit certain assets. However, it was later discovered that the list of forfeited assets in the judgment was incomplete, omitting a small gold nugget seized by the Police. The Commissioner sought to correct this omission.

The legal issue before the court was whether the judgment could be amended to correct the accidental omission of the small gold nugget from the list of forfeited assets. The court needed to determine if the error was a clerical one, and if it could be corrected under rule 11.10 of the High Court Rules 2016. Additionally, the court had to ensure that any correction would not unfairly prejudice either party.

The court found that the omission was indeed a clerical error under rule 11.10(1)(a) of the High Court Rules 2016. The judgment contained a clear accidental omission, and correcting it would not prejudice either party. The court deemed the small gold nugget to have been included in the original judgment and granted leave to reseal the order to include the omitted asset. The Commissioner was also permitted to reseal the order approving the settlement assets of forfeiture to reflect the correction.

The court's decision was that the judgment should be amended to include the small gold nugget as one of the forfeited assets. The Commissioner was granted leave to reseal the order, ensuring that the small gold nugget was now correctly listed among the forfeited items. There were no issues regarding costs.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established