Commissioner of Police v Quirke

[2025] NZHC 2516

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA NGĀMOTU ROHE

CIV-2022-443-62

[2025] NZHC 2516

UNDER

the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009

BETWEEN

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Applicant

AND

THOMAS ARTHUR MAX QUIRKE

Respondent

Hearing:	On the papers
Appearances:	H Bullock for Applicant
Judgment:	1 September 2025

JUDGMENT OF McHERRON J

[1]                 This is an application by the Commissioner of Police for a type 1 assets forfeiture order in respect of funds totalling $89,985 seized on 13 February 2022 from a motor vehicle registered to the respondent, Mr Thomas Quirke.

[2]                 The Commissioner’s application is made pursuant to ss 43, 44, 49 and 50 of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Act). The Commissioner seeks an order that the funds vest in the Crown absolutely and be placed in the custody and control of the Official Assignee.

Background

[3]                 The respondent was stopped by police at a routine traffic stop in Normanby, South Taranaki on 13 February 2022. A warrantless search of his vehicle revealed methamphetamine, drug paraphernalia and the funds described above in cash, in

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v THOMAS ARTHUR MAX QUIRKE [2025] NZHC 2516 [1 September 2025]

bundles of notes tied together with rubber bands. The respondent claimed the funds were an inheritance but provided no supporting evidence.

[4]                 The respondent has a significant criminal history, including convictions for drug-related offending, unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition, and manufacture of methamphetamine. He is currently in prison and awaiting sentencing on further charges.

[5]                 On 25 February 2025, during an examination conducted under s 107 of the Act, the respondent signed a formal written statement expressing his intention to forfeit the funds. He declined to provide further evidence of the origin of the funds, though he later claimed that $40,000 of it was won through gambling.

[6]                 By minute dated 23 June 2025, Grau J directed that once the Commissioner had filed an affidavit of service, the matter could be referred to a Judge for a decision on the papers. An affidavit of service was filed on 4 July 2025. The affidavit affirmed on 3 July 2025 confirms the application for forfeiture, memorandum of counsel for the Commissioner and affidavit in support, together with a covering letter dated 25 June 2025, were served on the respondent, but does not indicate the date on which the documents were served. I infer it was some time between 25 June 2025 and 3 July 2025. Since then, the respondent has not filed a notice of opposition or otherwise communicated to the Court.

Legal framework

[7]                 Under s 50(1) of the Act, the Court must make a type 1 assets forfeiture order if satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the property is tainted.

[8]                 “Tainted property” is defined in s 5 as property acquired wholly or in part through significant criminal activity. “Significant criminal activity” includes offences punishable by five years’ or more imprisonment or from which property or benefits of value of $30,000 or more have been derived.1

1      Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009, ss 6, 5(1), definition of “threshold amount”.

[9]                 The Court may rely on circumstantial evidence and draw inferences from the totality of the evidence, as affirmed in Commissioner of Police v de Wys.2

My assessment

[10]             The respondent has provided no plausible innocent explanation for the origin of the $89,985. His claims of inheritance and gambling winnings are unsupported and are contradicted by financial analysis showing no such deposits or net gambling gains; rather he incurred net losses.

[11]             The respondent has a history of drug-related offending, including convictions for manufacture and supply of methamphetamine. The cash was found in circumstances consistent with drug offending.

[12]             The respondent has voluntarily signed a statement consenting to forfeiture and has not opposed the application.

[13]             I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities, based on the evidence set out in Jaskaran Singh’s affidavit, that the funds are tainted property, acquired through significant criminal activity, namely the manufacture, supply and sale of methamphetamine.

Result

[14]I make the following orders:

(a)The funds totalling $89,985 seized from the respondent on 13 February 2022 are declared tainted property.

(b)The funds vest in the Crown absolutely.

(c)The funds are to be placed in the custody and control of the Official Assignee.

McHerron J

2      Commissioner of Police v de Wys [2016] NZCA 634 at [9]-[12].