Commissioner of Police v Rangi

[2025] NZHC 151

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2024-409-701

[2025] NZHC 151

UNDER

the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009

IN THE MATTER

of an application pursuant to ss 21, 24 and 25 of the Act

BETWEEN

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Applicant

AND

CANNEN JACKSON RANGI

First Respondent

AND

GEORGE JOHN OWEN

Second Respondent

AND

DANIEL LEVI GRIEVE

Third Respondent

Hearing:

On the papers

Appearances:

O J Welsh for Applicant

No appearance for Respondents

Judgment:

13 February 2025

JUDGMENT OF EATON J

This judgment was delivered by me on …….. at ……… pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v RANGI AND OTHERS [2025] NZHC 151 [13 February 2025]

[1]    The Commissioner of Police (the Commissioner) applies on notice for a restraining order and a Type 1 Assets Forfeiture Order. Those applications were called before Associate Judge Paulsen on 5 February 2025.

[2]    The applications have been served but no steps taken by any of the respondents. The applications have been referred to me as duty Judge.

[3]    The Commissioner seeks that an on-notice order restraining the subject property be made on the papers and that the court either make the forfeiture order or direct that the application be set down for a formal proof hearing.

[4]    The property sought to be restrained is four discrete cash sums (together with any accrued interest) seized by the police on 13 May 2024 following a search of the premises at 615 Harewood Road, Christchurch where the three respondents were then residing. All funds are currently held in a New Zealand Police trust account.

[5]    I have reviewed the affidavit of Detective Danelle Asher, a detective attached to the Financial Crime Group, Southern Asset Recovery Unit and the affidavit of service of Steven Williams.

[6]    Detective Asher’s evidence confirms that following the execution of a search warrant on 13 May 2024, the three respondents have pleaded guilty to various charges of supplying MDMA and ketamine. Messrs Rangi and Owen have been sentenced. Mr Grieve is awaiting sentence.

[7]    I am satisfied, having regard to the supporting evidence, that the four discrete cash sums are tainted property and that the respondents have unlawfully benefited from significant criminal activity. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the Commissioner has made out grounds for a restraining order to be made.

Order

[8]I order that the property specified in paragraph [9](a)-(d):

(a)is not to be disposed of, or dealt with, other than as provided for in the restraining order; and

(b)is to in the Official Assignee’s custody and control;

[9]The property referred to in paragraph [8]:

(a)$6,312 cash (plus any accrued interest) seized on 13 May 2024, under the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 from Mr Rangi’s (the first respondent) bedroom at his home address at 615 Harewood Road, Christchurch, and currently held in a New Zealand Police trust account.

(b)$10,260 cash (plus any accrued interest) seized on 13 May 2024, under the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 from Mr Owen’s (the second respondent) bedroom at his home address at 615 Harewood Road, Christchurch, and currently held in a New Zealand Police trust account.

(c)$2,260 cash (plus any accrued interest) seized on 13 May 2024, under the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 from Mr Grieve’s (the third respondent) bedroom at his home address at 615 Harewood Road, Christchurch, and currently held in a New Zealand Police trust account.

(d)$17,500 cash (plus any accrued interest) seized on 13 May 2024, under the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, located in a combination safe from Mr Grieve’s (the third respondent) bedroom at his home address at 615 Harewood Road, Christchurch, and currently held in a New Zealand Police trust account.

[10]   I direct the registrar to convene a 30-minute formal proof hearing to determine the Type 1 Assets Forfeiture Order application. I direct the Commissioner to file a brief supporting memorandum two working days in advance of the formal proof hearing. The Judge to consider that application can then determine whether a hearing is required or whether the application can be dealt with on the papers.

...................................................

Eaton J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitors, Christchurch