Commissioner of Police v Saunders

Case [2012] NZHC 3479


IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND GREYMOUTH REGISTRY

CIV-2012-418-000069 [2012] NZHC 3479

BETWEEN  THE COMMISSIONER OF THE NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Applicant

ANDSHANE DAVID SAUNDERS First Respondent

ANDROBINA SHAW SAUNDERS Second Respondent

ANDBEVAN PATRICK TE TAI Third Respondent

ANDAMANDA JANE TE TAI Fourth Respondent

Hearing:         Dealt with on the papers

Judgment:      18 December 2012

JUDGMENT OF CHISHOLM J

[1]      On 26 June 2012 I made a restraining order relating to the property of the third and fourth respondents at 123 Peel Street, Westport, together with their ASB bank account.  At subsequent telephone conferences the possibility of a settlement between the applicant and the third and fourth respondents was traversed and agreement has now been reached as to the terms of the settlement.

[2]      At this stage there is no formal application before the Court for a forfeiture order (in this case a profit forfeiture order) in relation to the assets of the third and fourth respondents referred to above.   I therefore treat the joint memorandum of counsel dated 14 December 2012 as an application for the same under the Criminal

Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009.

COMMISSIONER OF NEW ZEALAND POLICE V SAUNDERS HC GRY CIV-2012-418-000069 [18

December 2012]

[3]      Under s 95 of the Act a settlement between the Commissioner and any other party does not bind the parties unless it is approved by the High Court.  The High Court must approve the settlement if it is satisfied that it is consistent with the purposes of the Act and the overall interests of justice.

[4]      Having been involved in the original application for the restraining order and subsequent telephone conferences I am familiar with the circumstances surrounding the  application  for  forfeiture.    I  am  satisfied  that  the  proposed  settlement  is consistent with the purposes of the Act and the overall interests of justice.

[5]      The following settlement is confirmed:

(a)      The police will accept the sum of $30,000 as a profit forfeiture order, in full settlement of all matters involving the third and fourth respondents in terms of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009.

(b)The sum of $30,000 is to be paid from the bank account and the balance of the bank account is to be released to the third and fourth respondents.

(c)       No order as to costs is sought by either party.

[6]      Should the need arise, leave is reserved to either party to apply further for the purposes of implementing the settlement referred to in the preceding paragraph.

Solicitors:

Raymond Donnelly, P O Box 533, Christchurch 8140,  [email protected]

Michael Knowles, P O Box 2157, Christchurch 8140,

Details
AGLC
Commissioner of Police v Saunders [2012] NZHC 3479
Case
[2012] NZHC 3479
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Commissioner of Police v Saunders involves the Commissioner of the New Zealand Police as the applicant and Shane David Saunders, Robina Shaw Saunders, Bevan Patrick Te Tai, and Amanda Jane Te Tai as the respondents. The dispute revolves around the potential forfeiture of assets under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009. The case was dealt with on the papers and a judgment was issued on 18 December 2012 by Justice Chisholm. The legal issues before the court involved the approval of a settlement between the Commissioner and the third and fourth respondents, Bevan Patrick Te Tai and Amanda Jane Te Tai. The court had to determine if the settlement was consistent with the purposes of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 and the overall interests of justice. The court found that the proposed settlement was consistent with the Act and the interests of justice, and approved the settlement terms. The settlement required the police to accept a $30,000 profit forfeiture order, paid from the respondents' bank account, with the remaining balance to be released to the respondents.

The court's reasoning in approving the settlement was based on its familiarity with the circumstances of the case, including the original application for the restraining order and subsequent telephone conferences. Justice Chisholm determined that the settlement was consistent with the purposes of the Act and the overall interests of justice, as the police accepted the sum of $30,000 as a profit forfeiture order, and the respondents' bank account balance would be released to them. The court also noted that no order as to costs was sought by either party. Should the need arise, leave was reserved for either party to apply further for the purposes of implementing the settlement. The final orders confirmed the settlement terms as outlined in the judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.