Commissioner of Police v Woodrow

[2022] NZHC 2339

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WAIHŌPAI ROHE

CIV-2022-425-60

[2022] NZHC 2339

BETWEEN

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Applicant

AND

COREY ROBIN WOODROW

First Respondent

VERONICA MARY COPE

Second Respondent

Hearing:	(Dealt with on the papers
Appearances:	R W Donnelly for Applicant No appearance for Respondents
Judgment:	13 September 2022

JUDGMENT OF EATON J

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v WOODROW [2022] NZHC 2339 [13 September 2022]

[1]    The Commissioner of Police applies, without notice, for restraining orders under ss 24 and 25 of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (the Act). The orders are sought in relation to the following property:

(a)$10,000 cash (and interest) seized on 28 November 2020 under the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, from 766 Gore Mataura Highway, and currently held in a New Zealand Police trust account;

(b)All interests in the real property at 766 Gore Mataura Highway,

Mataura (Lot 1 Deposited Plan 331364); and

(c)2017 Ford Ranger, registration KML829, registered to Corey Robin Woodrow (the first respondent).

[2]    The orders are sought on the basis there are reasonable grounds to believe that the property is “tainted property” and/or that the respondents have unlawfully benefitted from significant criminal activity. The respondent applies on a without notice basis under s 22 of the Act on the grounds there is a risk that the proposed restrained property may be disposed of or concealed or otherwise dealt with if notice were to be given to persons who have an interest in the proposed restrained property.

[3]    In support of the without notice application, Rochelle Frances Fitzgerald refers to the risk to specific property the subject of notified restraint and/or forfeiture proceedings. She deposes this risk may be elevated when the respondent’s equity in the property will be at risk in the event of a subsequent forfeiture order. Ms Fitzgerald says the risk here is elevated because the 766 Gore Mataura Highway property is unencumbered. The property is readily able to be disposed of through the transfer to a third party, or otherwise have its equity reduced. A without notice restraining order will preserve the value in the property pending the hearing of an on notice application.

[4]    I need only be satisfied that there is a risk of the proposed restrained property being encumbered or otherwise dealt with if notice were given. I am satisifed there is such a risk. That, of course, does not apply to the cash that is already in the possession of the police.

[5]    As regards the substantive orders, I must believe on reasonable grounds that either:

(a)the property over which the orders are sought is “tainted property” as defined in s 5(1) of the Act;

(a)… any property that has, wholly or in part, been—

(i)acquired as a result of significant criminal activity; or

(ii)directly or indirectly derived from significant criminal activity;

Or:

(b)The respondent has unlawfully benefited from significant criminal activity as defined in s 7:

7Meaning of unlawfully benefited from significant criminal activity

In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, a person has unlawfully benefited from significant criminal activity if the person has knowingly, directly or indirectly, derived a benefit from significant criminal activity (whether or not that person undertook or was involved in the significant criminal activity).

[6]    Mr Woodrow, the first respondent, has pleaded guilty to charges of cultivation of cannabis, possession for supply of cannabis and supply of cannabis. That offending is “significant criminal activity” as defined by s 6 of the Act, being offending punishable by a maximum term of five or more years’ imprisonment.

[7]    I have considered the supporting affidavit and am satisfied there are reasonable grounds to believe the specified property is “tainted” and the respondents have unlawfully benefitted from  significant  criminal  activity.  I  refer  particularly  to  Mr Woodrow having been charged and pleaded guilty to the cannabis charges. Further, I rely on the evidence of unexplained cash spending, unexplained deposits, the associated accumulation of assets, each of which I find is consistent with the respondents benefiting from the proceeds of dealing in cannabis.

[8]    I am, therefore satisfied that the grounds have been made out for restraining orders to be made in relation to the specified property and I make orders in accordance with para 1(c) of the application.

[9]    I decline to make the early sale order sought in terms of s 1(a) and (b). There is no urgency associated with the early sale order sought and, in my view, that matter is appropriately determined following an on notice application.

...................................................

Eaton J

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor’s Office, Invercargill

Copy to

Corey Woodrow – First Respondent Veronica Cope – Second Respondent