Commissioner of Police v Te Oka

[2024] NZHC 1753

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE PAPAIOEA ROHE

CIV-2024-454-24 [2024] NZHC 1753

UNDER

The Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009

IN THE MATTER OF

An application under Sections 21, 24 and 25

BETWEEN

THE COMMISSIONER, NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Applicant

AND

JARROD HETARAKA TE OKA

First Respondent

AND

SELENA CHASE

Second Respondent

Hearing:	On the Papers
Appearances:	G J C Carter for Applicant
Judgment:	1 July 2024

JUDGMENT OF CULL J

[1]                 This is an application under ss 24 and 25 of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (the Act) for a restraining order over cash totalling $53,490 and a further

$3,250.

[2]                 Those items were found after a short police pursuit of a vehicle driven by Mr Te Oka to his address. The vehicle attempted to evade the police until it crashed through a fence and into a garage. Mr Te Oka was seen to exit the vehicle with a package in his hand and briefly went out of sight.

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v TE OKA & CHASE [2024] NZHC 1753 [1 July 2024]

[3]                 The police later detained him and he explained that he had discarded a small amount of cannabis behind the shed. The police invoked a warrantless search for drugs, and when no cannabis was found behind the shed, Mr te Oka admitted that he was carrying a bag containing cash which he discarded in the neighbouring property by a fenceline. The bag was later found and it contained $53,490.

[4]                 The police searched Mr Te Oka’s property, where they found a .22 round in a vehicle registered to Ms Chase, six grams of cannabis plant in the garage and further cash totalling $3,250 inside a purse that appeared to belong to Ms Chase. Various items associated with drug use and dealing were also seized.

[5]                 In an affidavit filed by Detective Rennie, he describes Mr Te Oka as a patched gang member with no regular employment since his release from prison in 2022. He has historic cannabis-related convictions and his primary declared income is  from MSD benefits. Ms Chase is the partner of the first respondent. She is employed and has a weekly income of $702.32.

[6]                 Although Mr Te Oka told the police he had found the cash “at the park,” Ms Chase was overheard claiming it was her “wages.” The Commissioner’s application for restraining orders is unopposed and the police evidence is uncontested. The police claim that the sums sought to be restrained are amounts that are inconsistent with the respondents’ declared taxable income and that the actions of Mr Te Oka together with the items found at the property, give rise to a reasonable inference that the cash is the proceeds of the supply of drugs.

[7]                 Before an application for restraint can be granted, the court must be satisfied that it has reasonable grounds to believe that the respondents have unlawfully benefited from significant  criminal activity.1  As noted, the Commissioner’s  evidence is uncontested. I consider there are reasonable grounds at this juncture to believe that the respondents have been involved in significant criminal activity punishable by

1      Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009, s 25(1).

imprisonment for over five  years or more.2  The cash amount sought to be restrained is over the statutory threshold of $30,000.3

[8]                 I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Mr Te Oka is directly involved in drug dealing and that Ms Chase must have been aware of such involvement. There are reasonable grounds therefore  to infer that the respondents have unlawfully benefited from that criminal activity and there is no legitimate explanation before the Court for the respondents having the sums of cash that were found.

[9]                 I note that the respondents have not contested restraint, but they will have an opportunity to contest forfeiture when an application is made.

[10]              Accordingly, I grant the Commissioner’s application to restrain the cash sums located near and in the respondents’ property.

Cull J

2      Section 6(1)(a).

3      Sections 6(1)(b) and 5(1).