Commissioner of Police v Thacker

[2025] NZHC 742

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CIV-2020-463-50

[2025] NZHC 742

UNDER

The Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009

BETWEEN

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Applicant

AND

JIM DAVID THACKER

Respondent

HONE JOHN MCCAULEY RONAKI
Respondent

PANE JASMIN HART
Respondent

contd over

Hearing:

On the papers

Appearances:

L J Clay for Applicant

R Nabney for Jim Thacker H Smith for Hone Ronaki M J Phelps for Pane Hart

Judgment:

1 April 2025

JUDGMENT OF LANG J

[approval of settlements]

This judgment was delivered by Justice Lang

On 1 April 2025 at 1.30 pm Pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date:………………………

Solicitors/counsel:

Pollett Legal, Tauranga W T Nabney, Tauranga

R M Mansfield KC/H Smith, Auckland M J Phelps, Hastings

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v THACKER & ORS [2025] NZHC 742 [1 April 2025]

KELLY JAMES PETROWSKI

Respondent

LANCE THACKER
Interested Party

DIANE MAGGIE TAMAKU THACKER
Interested Party

BARBIE JEAN JAMIE REID
Interested Party

PAULA MARINA WANOA
Interested Party

EPHRON RONAKI
Interested Party

PETER NETANA TE HAU
Interested Party

[1]    In this proceeding the Commissioner of Police seeks asset and profit forfeiture orders against the second respondent, Mr Hone Ronaki. The parties have now reached agreement regarding the basis on which the Commissioner’s claim can be settled. They seek the court’s approval of the agreement under s 95 of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (the Act).

Background

[2]    Mr Ronaki came to the attention of the police during a long running covert investigation known as “Operation Silk”. This revealed that Mr Ronaki was involved in the sale and supply of the Class A controlled drugs methamphetamine and cocaine, as well as the Class C controlled drug cannabis. The investigation resulted in charges being laid against Mr Ronaki and he was subsequently found guilty by a jury following a lengthy trial in this court in 2023.

[3]    In its current form the Commissioner’s application seeks asset forfeiture orders in relation to four sums of cash that the police seized and attribute to Mr Ronaki. The Commissioner also seeks a profit forfeiture order in the sum of $645,800. Eight vehicles belonging, or attributed, to Mr Ronaki have now been sold and the proceeds of sale are held by the Official Assignee. The proceeds of sale are available to be applied in reduction of the amount owing under any profit forfeiture order.

The proposed settlement

[4]    Mr Ronaki accepts that he was involved in significant criminal activity but does not accept that he unlawfully benefitted from that activity to the extent claimed by the Commissioner. He is nevertheless prepared to consent to a profit forfeiture order being made against him in the sum of $645,800. He does so on the basis that the cash and sale proceeds of the vehicles are forfeited to the Commissioner and the Commissioner does not pursue him for the balance of the order.

Decision

[5]    I am satisfied that the proposed settlement constitutes a pragmatic resolution of the claims against Mr Ronaki. It means that he is required disgorge cash and motor

vehicles that he is likely to have obtained using benefits derived from the offending. This is in keeping with the purposes of the Act. It is also in the interests of justice because it resolves the present proceeding without the need for the Commissioner to incur the expense of a full trial.

Decision

[6]    I approve the settlement under s 95 of the Act and make the orders sought in both the assets forfeiture and profit forfeiture applications. There is no issue as to costs.

Lang J