Crosland v Police

[2012] NZHC 2546

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI 2012-485-61 [2012] NZHC 2546

NARISSA BERYL CROSLAND

Appellant

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:         On the papers

Counsel:         M Robinson for the Appellant

M Ferrier for the Respondent

Judgment:      2 October 2012

JUDGMENT OF MALLON J (Number 2)

[1]      I refer to my judgment in this matter delivered on 2 August 2012.   In that judgment I indicated an intention to make a reparation order for a total sum that could be paid off by instalments of $30 a week over five years.  The only remaining issue was whether to include in the order an allowance for a lump sum payable from the sale of Ms Crosland’s house.  That issue was left open at the request of counsel for the respondent, who proposed that further information be obtained, via a further reparation report, as to the equity in Ms Crosland’s house.

[2]      The further reparation report did not advance matters.  Ms Crosland advised the report writer that she could no longer remember the name or contact details for

the appraiser who had visited her property and that she had not taken advantage of

CROSLAND V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC WN CRI 2012-485-61 [2 October 2012]

the “drop in” appraisal offered at the time.  After the further reparation report was received, Ms Crosland, through her counsel, requested an extension of time to file supplementary submissions.   This was because she had arranged for a real estate agent  to  attend  her  property  on  11 September  2012.    On  12 September  2012

Ms Crosland’s counsel advised that the real estate agent had not attended.  No further information was provided by either party.

[3]      On the basis of the limited information before me, the best that can be said is that there may be some equity in the house and Ms Crosland is entitled to a half share of any such equity.  I consider a conservative approach as to the likely equity is appropriate.   One-third of Ms Crosland’s half share of the difference between the rateable value and the bank debt seems to me to be appropriately conservative.   I therefore consider that the sum of $10,000 should be added to the reparation amount.

[4]      Accordingly, I quash the order in the District Court that Ms Crosland pay reparation of $48,772.18.  In its place, I make a reparation order for $17,800.  This total sum is derived from instalments of $30 per week over five years plus a lump sum of $10,000.  Ms Crosland is to make arrangements with the Collections Unit of the District Court for the payment of the reparation sum, noting that the intention is that the $10,000 is to be paid from the proceeds of the sale of Ms Crosland’s house and the balance by instalments over a five year period.  In the event that the house sale  does  not  result  in  sufficient  funds  to  make  the  lump  sum  payment,  then Ms Crosland can bring that to the attention of the Collections Unit of the District Court.

Mallon J

Solicitors:

Public Defender’s Office, Wellington for the Appellant

Crown Solicitor’s Office, Wellington for the Respondent