Commissioner of Police v Tāwhiri

Case

[2024] NZHC 4002

20 December 2024

No judgment structure available for this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2024-485-847

[2024] NZHC 4002

UNDER The Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009

IN THE MATTER OF

An application under s 22, 23 and 25

BETWEEN

THE COMMISSIONER, THE NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Applicant

AND

MICHAEL MANO TĀWHIRI

Respondent

Hearing: On the Papers

Counsel:

E M Ferrier & H Savage for Applicant

Judgment:

20 December 2024


JUDGMENT OF CHURCHMAN J


[1]                 By application dated 20 December 2024 the Commissioner of Police (the Applicant) applies for a restraining order against Michael Mano Tāwhiri (the Respondent).

[2]                 The application is made on a without notice basis, on the basis that there is a significant risk that the Kiwibank funds could be disposed of or concealed if notice of the proceedings were given to the respondent.

[3]                 The memorandum of counsel filed in support of the application states that if the without notice order is granted, the applicant intends to file an on-notice application within seven days in accordance with s 39 of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (the Act).

THE COMMISSIONER, THE NEW ZEALAND POLICE v TĀWHIRI [2024] NZHC 4002 [20 December 2024]

[4]                 The application is supported by two affidavits from Michael David Keller, a Specialist Investigator employed by the New Zealand Police together with a memorandum of counsel.

[5]The property that is the subject of the application is:

(a)All funds held in the Kiwibank Ltd Bank account number [redacted] held in the name of Michael Mano Tāwhiri, with a balance of

$43,860.54 as at 31 October 2024 (Kiwibank funds); and

(b)Cash totalling $2,900 which was seized during the search of the respondent’s bedroom on  23  July  2024,  presently  held  in  the  New Zealand Police trust account.

[6]The facts upon which the application is based are:

On 1 May 2023 respondent’s vehicle and person were searched and the police located cannabis plant material, methamphetamine and $3,450 in cash. As a result, the respondent was charged with:

(a)Possession of methamphetamine for supply;

(b)Possession of cannabis;

(c)Aggravated assault (x2); and

(d)Failing to stop for red/blue flashing lights.

[7]                 On 28 February 2024 the United States Customs and Boarder Protection (USCBP) intercepted a consignment addressed to ‘Michael Patea’ at the address of [redacted] New Zealand. This is the address at which the respondent resided.

[8]                 The package was examined and found to contain 4,332.6 grams of methamphetamine.

[9]                 On 23 July 2024 Wairarapa Police executed a search warrant at [redacted]. This search located the controlled drugs methamphetamine, cannabis oil, cannabis, LSD and MDMA.

[10]As a result of this the respondent was charged with:

(a)possession of cannabis oil for supply;

(b)possession of methamphetamine for supply;

(c)procure / possess LSD; and

(d)procure / possess other opiates.

[11]              The applicant contends that the respondent has been involved in significant criminal activity as that term is defined in s 6 of the CPRA; and that the property referred to above is tainted property in terms of s 5 of the CPRA in that it has been wholly or in part acquired or derived from the significant criminal activity of the respondent; and/or the respondent has unlawfully benefitted from significant criminal activity in terms of s 7 of the CPRA; and the respondent has interests in the property.

[12]              The affidavit material filed in support of the application confirms that for the seven years ending 31 March 2018—31 March 2024 the respondent’s total declared income was $94,975.84 and, of that amount, $90,269.32 was derived from Ministry of Social Development benefits.

[13]              The applicant contends that, given the respondent’s limited income the substantial sums of cash referred to in [5] above could not have been acquired lawfully by the respondent.

[14]              The applicant also refers to an analysis of the banking records of the respondent for the period 2017—2024. This shows that during period the respondent received

$130,461.74 in transfers from third parties and that during that period the respondent transferred a total of $37,751 to third parties.

[15]              During that period a total of $9,175 cash was deposited into the respondent’s account and $92,931.50 cash was withdrawn.

[16]The applicant’s analysis of these transactions is ongoing.

[17]              The respond has been in custody since his arrest on 23 July 2024, but the applicant’s evidence is that since that date, four transactions totalling $755 were sent to the respondent’s prison bank account from his Kiwibank account.

[18]              The applicant contends that the evidence provides reasonable grounds to believe that:

(a)the respondent has been involved in importing, supplying, and selling various controlled drugs;

(b)that he has unlawfully benefitted from this significant criminal activity and that he has interests in the property sought for restraint.

[19]              The memorandum of counsel notes that the respondent has entered guilty pleas to a number of drug related charges including:

(a)Possesses methamphetamine for supply (x2);

(b)Possesses cannabis oil for supply;

(c)Procure / possess LSD; and

(d)Procure / possess other opioids.

[20]              The respondent has an extensive criminal history including many convictions for drug related offending.

Analysis

[21]              I am satisfied that the affidavit material filed in support of the application provides reasonable grounds to believe that the property sought to be restrained is

tainted property, being property acquired as a result of significant criminal activity by the respondent.

[22]              I am also satisfied that, for the grounds relied upon by the applicant, it is necessary for this matter to have been proceeded with on a without notice basis.

Outcome

[23]              Accordingly, I grant the without notice restraining order and approve the draft order filed with the application.

Churchman J

Solicitors:
Crown Law, Wellington for Applicant

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

0