Commissioner of Police v Rewita

[2017] NZHC 2111

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CIV-2015-463-108 [2017] NZHC 2111

IN THE MATTER

of an application pursuant to Criminal

Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009

BETWEEN

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE Applicant

AND

TAI REWITA Respondent

Hearing:	On the papers
Appearances:	A Hill for Applicant W T Nabney for Respondent
Judgment:	31 August 2017

JUDGMENT OF LANG J

[on application for profit forfeiture orders]

This judgment was delivered by me on 31 August 2017 at 4.30 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v REWITA [2017] NZHC 2111 [31 August 2017]

[1]      In this proceeding the Commissioner of Police (the Commissioner) seeks orders under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (the Act).  The parties have reached agreement regarding the orders to be made, and now seek the Court’s approval in respect of the same under s 95 of the Act.

[2]      The  respondent,  Mr  Rewita,  was  found  guilty  of  supplying  or  being  in possession of supply of 221.2 grams of methamphetamine.  He was selling this in one or two ounce lots for approximately $12,500 per ounce.  The parties agree that during the relevant period of criminal activity Mr Rewita unlawfully benefited to the value of $97,500.  This equates to 7.8 ounces at $12,500 per ounce.  For that reason the parties agree that the maximum recoverable amount is $97,500.

[3]      The total value of assets currently under restraint is $85,000.  This comprises cash, motor vehicles, motorcycles and motorcycle parts that were seized during the course of the police investigation.  The parties have agreed that all of the restrained property is to be disposed of under s 83(1) of the Act with the exception of a 1987

Harley  Davidson  motorcycle  registration  number  14WAB  (having  a  value  of

$12,000) and assorted motorcycle parts that were seized from an address in Tokoroa on 12 June 2015.   The value of those items is unknown.   The motorcycle and motorcycle parts are to be returned to Mr Rewita once the Court has approved the settlement.

[4]      I am satisfied that the orders that the parties seek are consistent with the purposes of the Act because they return much of the profit derived by Mr Rewita to the  Crown.    The  Commissioner  has  agreed  not  to  pursue  Mr  Rewita  for  the difference between the maximum recoverable amount and the total value of the forfeited property.  This reflects the fact that litigation inevitably carries with it risk and expense that can be avoided if the parties reach agreement regarding the orders to be made.

[5]      I give the Court’s approval to the orders as sought.

Lang J