Commissioner of Police v Staiger

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND GREYMOUTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA MĀWHERA ROHE

CIV-2024-418-3

[2024] NZHC 164

BETWEEN
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Applicant

AND

DAVID STAIGER

Respondent

Hearing: On the papers

Appearances:

K South and C C White for Applicant

Judgment:

13 February 2024

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

This judgment was delivered by me on 13 February 2024 at 3 pm, pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v STAIGER [2024] NZHC 164 [13 February 2024]

[1] The Commissioner of Police (the Commissioner) has filed a without notice application under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (CPRA) for a restraining order to be made, under s 25 of that Act in respect of the following property:

(a)14 Cambridge Street, Taylorville, Greymouth, being the property identified in Certificate of Title WS2D/735, with a legal description of Lot 76 Deposited Plan 83.

[2] Under s 25, the Court has a discretion to make a restraining order if it has reasonable grounds to believe that the respondent:

(a)has unlawfully benefited from significant activity; and

(b)has an interest in or effective control over the property identified in the application.

[3] In the present case, the Commissioner contends that there is evidence upon which the Court can be satisfied that the respondent, David Staiger, has unlawfully benefited from significant criminal activity as defined under the CPRA, in that he has:

(a)been convicted of cannabis cultivation and the commercial sale of cannabis in breach of ss 9 and 6 of the Misuse of Drugs Act; and he has

(b)diverted electricity in breach of s 271 of the Crimes Act.

[4] Furthermore, the Court can be satisfied that he has an interest in the property proposed to be restrained as he is the registered owner of it.

[5] The application is made without notice. Under s 22 of the CPRA, the Court may consider the application without notice being given to the respondent, if the Court is satisfied that there is a risk of the proposed restrained property being destroyed, disposed of, altered or concealed if notice were given to the person or those persons. I accept that the making of a without notice restraining order is a “precautionary step”

only.1 The CPRA requires an on notice application to be made within seven days, thus allowing the respondent to prompt opportunity to contest it.

[6] In this case, I accept it is appropriate to proceed without notice as at present there is no impediment to Mr Staiger dealing with the property or entering into transactions that could allow him to transfer or dispose of the property in a bid to avoid its subsequent forfeiture under the CPRA.

[7] Being satisfied that all the statutory requirements are met for the making of a without notice restraining order, as set out in the affidavit of Emmie Irene Alfeld in support of the application, and as addressed in the memorandum of counsel in support, I make a without notice restraining order in terms of the draft order accompanying the application.

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Christchurch

1 Crown Solicitor at Invercargill v Laing [2012] NZHC 2584.

The High Court of New Zealand dealt with an application from the Commissioner of Police for a restraining order under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009. The Commissioner sought to restrain the property located at 14 Cambridge Street, Taylorville, Greymouth, which is registered under the name of David Staiger. The application was made without notice to Staiger, which is permissible under the CPRA if there is a risk of the property being destroyed or disposed of. The Commissioner argued that Staiger had unlawfully benefited from significant criminal activity, including convictions for cannabis cultivation and sale, and electricity diversion, and that he had an interest in the property as its registered owner.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the statutory criteria for making a without notice restraining order were satisfied. Specifically, the court needed to determine if there were reasonable grounds to believe that Staiger had unlawfully benefited from significant criminal activity and if he had an interest in or effective control over the property. The court also had to consider whether it was appropriate to proceed without giving Staiger notice, given the risk of him disposing of the property if notified.

The court found that the statutory requirements for making a without notice restraining order were met. The Commissioner provided sufficient evidence of Staiger's criminal activity and his interest in the property. Additionally, the court was satisfied that proceeding without notice was appropriate because there was a risk that Staiger might dispose of the property if he were given notice. The court concluded that a precautionary step was necessary to prevent the dissipation of assets that could potentially be forfeited under the CPRA. Consequently, the court granted the application and issued a without notice restraining order over the property.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

Hearing:	On the papers
Appearances:	K South and C C White for Applicant
Judgment:	13 February 2024