Commissioner of Police v Pitman

[2024] NZHC 3045

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.