Commissioner of Police v Robinson

[2025] NZHC 1476

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WAIHŌPAI ROHE

CIV-2025-425-47

[2025] NZHC 1476

UNDER

the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009

IN THE MATTER

of an application pursuant to 22, 24 and 25 of the Act

BETWEEN

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Applicant

AND

SHANE ROBINSON

First Respondent

AND

TRACEY ANNE CHITTOCK

Second Respondent

AND

WESTPAC NEW ZEALAND

Interested Party

Hearing:	On the papers
Appearances:	S N McKenzie for Applicant
Judgment:	6 June 2025

JUDGMENT OF OSBORNE J

Introduction

[1]                The Commissioner of Police applies without notice under ss 22, 24 and 25 of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 for a restraining order over property of the respondents, Shane Robinson and Tracey Chittock. The order is sought in respect of all interests in an Invercargill property (the Property) registered in the name of the respondents.

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v ROBINSON [2025] NZHC 1476 [6 June 2025]

Statutory regime

[2]                A restraining order may be made in relation to specific property if the court is satisfied that it has reasonable grounds to believe the property is tainted property.1 Property is “tainted property” if it has, wholly or in part, been acquired as a result of significant criminal activity or directly or indirectly derived from significant criminal activity.2 “Significant criminal activity” is an activity engaged in by a person that, if proceeded against as a criminal offence, would amount to offending that consists of or includes offences punishable by a maximum of five years’ imprisonment or more, or from which property, proceeds or benefits of a value of $30,000 or more have been directly or indirectly acquired or derived.3

[3]                  A court may make a restraining order relating to all or part of a respondent’s property if satisfied it has reasonable grounds to believe the respondent has unlawfully benefited from significant criminal activity.4 A person has unlawfully benefited from significant criminal activity if they have knowingly, directly or indirectly, derived a benefit from significant criminal activity, whether or not they were involved in that activity.5

Application made without notice

[4]                Under s 22(1) of the Act, a court may determine an application for a restraining order without notice given to affected persons if satisfied there is a risk of the proposed restrained property being destroyed, disposed of, altered or concealed if notice were given. The applicant submits there is such a risk and a high incentive of the respondents to avoid potential forfeiture.

Evidence

[5]                The application is supported by an affidavit of Detective Michaela Cameron, with exhibits.

1      Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009, s 24.

2      Section 5—definition of “tainted property”.

3      Section 6.

4      Section 25(1).

5      Section 7.

[6]                The Property was subject to a search warrant carried out on 21 October 2021. Police found 48 cannabis clones being grown under an LED light with associated growing equipment and 55 larger cannabis plants growing under high-density light. Police also seized a metal tin containing $50 bags of cannabis and a 40-litre chilly bin containing cannabis leaf trimmings. Police located messages on the respondents’ phones involving the sale of drugs.

[7]                Power usage at the property showed significant power usage which dropped sharply from the time of the search warrant. The power usage and messages indicate the respondents had been cultivating and selling cannabis for three years and six months. A conservative estimate placed the unlawful benefit at $1,009,400. The respondents deposited $57,837.00 from unknown sources into their bank accounts from 2018 to 2023, which markedly decreased after the search warrant. Of this,

$16,389.03 was deposited to meet loan payments on the Property. Further, the respondents’ bank accounts were lacking day-to-day expenditure such as food purchases, evidencing use of cash other than from legitimate income sources.

[8]                Mr Robinson was convicted and sentenced for cultivating, possessing for supply, and supplying cannabis—offences which carry a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment or more.6

Disclosure

[9]                I am satisfied upon the evidence filed that there are reasonable grounds to believe the respondents have unlawfully benefited from significant criminal activity and that the property the subject of the application is tainted property.

[10]            I am satisfied there is a risk the Property (the subject of the application) may be disposed of or concealed if notice of the application were given to the respondents.

6      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 9 and 6(2)(c)—maximum penalty seven and eight years’ imprisonment respectively.

Orders

[11]I order:

(a)the property identified in the application dated 6 May 2025 to which this order applies—

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

(ii)is to be in the Official Assignee’s custody and control.

(b)the respondents are required to allow the Official Assignee access to the property for the purpose of inspections and/or valuations.

Osborne J

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, Invercargill