Commissioner of Police v Powhiro

[2025] NZHC 3161

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2024-409-517

[2025] NZHC 3161

UNDER

the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009

IN THE MATTER

of an application pursuant to ss 21 and 25 of the Act

BETWEEN

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Applicant

AND

MARK ALLAN POWHIRO

Respondent

Hearing:	On the papers
Appearances:	O J Welsh for Applicant
Judgment:	22 October 2025

JUDGMENT OF OSBORNE J

Introduction

[1]                 The Commissioner of Police applies under s 41(1) of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (the Act) to extend a restraining order I granted on 7 November 2024 against property of Mark Powhiro (the 2024 judgment).1

Background

[2]Since the 2024 judgment, Mr Powhiro has been convicted of:

(a)possession of methamphetamine for supply;

1      Commissioner of Police v Powhiro [2024] NZHC 3327.

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v POWHIRO [2025] NZHC 3161 [22 October 2025]

(b)possession of ecstasy for supply;

(c)failure to carry out search obligations;

(d)possession of a drug utensil; and

(e)breaching the Medicines Act 1981.

[3]                 Mr Powhiro was sentenced to two years and two months’ imprisonment in August 2025.

[4]                 As detailed in the 2024 judgment, the application for the restraining order was made in respect of sums of cash seized during execution of a search  warrant at     Mr Powhiro’s home address (the address) on 30 April 2024. The property subject to the restraining order is:

(a)cash totalling $1,000.00 (plus any interest accrued) in various denominations, located in a jacket pocket hanging in a wardrobe at the address;

(b)cash totalling $795.00 (plus any interest accrued) in denominations of

$5 and $10 notes, found in a bedroom wardrobe at the address;

(c)cash totalling $20,000.00 (plus any interest accrued) recovered from a rigid box, located within a stack of vehicle mag wheels and tyres at the address; and

(d)cash totalling $3,410.00 (plus any interest accrued) recovered from a bag located on Mr Powhiro.

(collectively the “property”)

Relevant principles

[5]Section 41 of the Act provides:

41       Extending duration of restraining order

(1)If a court has made a restraining order, the applicant for that order may, before the restraining order expires, apply to that court to extend its duration.

(2)If an application is made under subsection (1), the court may order that the operation of the restraining order be extended for a period not exceeding 1 year.

(3)The duration of a restraining order may be extended more than once under this section.

(4)If, before a restraining order would otherwise expire under section 37(1), an application is made to a court under this section and the application is granted, the restraining order ceases to be in force on the date specified in the court’s order.

[6]                 As held by this Court in Commissioner of Police v Jiang, a court is unlikely to decline an extension (assuming there is no change in the information which warranted the initial order) unless there is a material prejudice to the respondent or interested party.2

The application

[7]                 The Commissioner applied on the grounds the criminal proceedings against Mr Powhiro were concluded in August 2025 and an application for forfeiture would be made shortly (now filed on 17 October 2025). An extension to the restraining order is therefore required to preserve the Commissioner’s position until the determination of the forfeiture application.

[8]                 Accompanying the application is an affidavit of specialist investigator Christopher Roberts who is an authorised officer for the purposes of the application. Mr Roberts deposes he served  Mr  Powhiro  with  a  copy  of  the  application  on  14 October 2025 and obtained a signed statement from Mr Powhiro in which he confirms he received the application and consented to the extension of the restraining orders (exhibited to  Mr Roberts’  affidavit).  In  a  separate  written  statement  of Mr Powhiro (dated 3 October 2025) he states he consents to the forfeiture of the cash. He also adds he has never claimed an interest in the cash found at his property.

2      Commissioner of Police v Jiang [2019] NZHC 3318 at [21].

[9]                 I am satisfied extension of the restraining order is appropriate. In the 2024 judgment I was satisfied there was reasonable cause to believe the property was tainted property. Having reviewed the evidence, and in light of Mr Powhiro’s convictions for supplying class A and B drugs, there is no reason to depart from my earlier reasoning. The justification for making the initial order has not changed. The Commissioner has now filed an application for a forfeiture order. There is no prejudice to Mr Powhiro from extending the order. Nor is there a need to vary it.

Order

[10]             I extend the restraining order I made on 7 November 2024 to now expire on  7 November 2026.

Osborne J

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, Christchurch