Doyle v Commissioner of Police
[2025] NZHC 1460
•5 June 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE
CIV-2025-404-447
[2025] NZHC 1460
UNDER the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 BETWEEN
CASSINO THANE DOYLE
Applicant
AND
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Respondent
Hearing: On the papers Counsel:
STL Teppett for the Applicant
R M Mansfield KC and S L Cogan for W Doyle (interested party) M R Harborow and C R Purdon for the Respondent
Judgment:
5 June 2025
JUDGMENT OF ANDREW J
This judgment was delivered by me on 5 June 2025 at 3 pm, pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules
Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:
DOYLE v COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [2025] NZHC 1460 [5 June 2025]
Introduction
[1] In my judgment of 26 August 2024 in Commissioner of Police v Doyle,1 I ordered that the property at 13 Russell Street, Freemans Bay, Auckland, be realised to satisfy the profit forfeiture order I made against Mr Wayne Doyle under s 55 of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (the Act).
[2] Mr Cassino Doyle has applied for relief from forfeiture of 13 Russell Street (application for relief/the application).2
[3] The application for relief was predicated on Mr Cassino Doyle’s appointment as executor of Mr Walter Doyle’s estate, which held a full beneficial interest in one-half of 13 Russell Street. Mr Walter Doyle was Mr Wayne Doyle’s father, and Mr Cassino Doyle is Mr Wayne Doyle’s son.
[4] The application was opposed by the Commissioner of Police and the application was scheduled to be heard before me on 5 June 2025. However, the parties have engaged in successful settlement discussions and by consent now seek orders from the Court. This includes a limited order of relief from forfeiture.
[5] Mr Wayne Doyle, the respondent in the earlier proceedings, consents to the making of the orders sought, but on certain conditions.
Background
[6]The ownership of 13 Russell Street is as follows:
(a)a one-sixth share belonged to Mr Grant Doyle3 (and was excluded from the Commissioner’s application for civil forfeiture orders);
(b)a one-third share was held by the trustees of the Russell St Trust (and was forfeited via the profit forfeiture order I made); and
1 Commissioner of Police v Doyle [2024] NZHC 2392.
2 Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (the Act), s 62.
3 Mr Grant Doyle was Mr Wayne Doyle’s brother and Mr Walter Doyle’s son.
(c)a half share was held by Mr Wayne Doyle and Mr Cassino Doyle as executors of Mr Walter Doyle’s estate (and was forfeited via the profit forfeiture order I made).
[7] The application for relief now before me was made by Mr Cassino Doyle and concerns the half share that he and Mr Wayne Doyle hold as executors of Mr Walter Doyle’s estate (identified at [6(c)] above).
The terms of the agreement
[8]The Commissioner and the applicant, Mr Cassino Doyle, are agreed that:
(a)at the time of his death, Mr Walter Doyle beneficially owned a half share of 13 Russell Street;
(b)in accordance with the terms of Mr Walter Doyle’s will, Mr Wayne Doyle, Ms Charmaine Doyle and Mr Grant Doyle (deceased) are each entitled to a one-sixth share of 13 Russell Street, and therefore have interests in the property;
(c)neither Ms Charmaine Doyle nor Mr Grant Doyle (nor his two sons, Mr Kody Doyle and Mr Ricki Nathan, the latter understood to reside in Australia) have unlawfully benefited from the significant criminal activity to which the profit forfeiture orders made by me relate;
(d)given (b) and (c) above, the Court “must” grant the relief considered appropriate;4
(e)accordingly, Ms Charmaine Doyle and the beneficiaries of Mr Grant Doyle’s estate (Mr Kody Doyle and Mr Ricki Nathan) are entitled to relief from the forfeiture of the two-sixths of 13 Russell Street held by Mr Walter Doyle’s estate for their benefit;
4 See s 66(1) of the Act.
(f)it would not be appropriate for the Court to order relief in respect of the one-sixth share of 13 Russell Street held by Mr Walter Doyle’s estate for Mr Wayne Doyle’s benefit, given the profit forfeiture orders that I have made; and
(g)accordingly, relief in respect of the two-sixths of 13 Russell Street held by Mr Walter Doyle’s estate for Ms Charmaine Doyle and Mr Grant Doyle’s benefit should be granted as follows:
(i)Ms Charmaine Doyle is to receive one-sixth of the net proceeds from the sale of 13 Russell Street; and
(ii)Mr Kody Doyle and Mr Ricki Nathan are to receive one-sixth (total) of the net proceeds from the sale of 13 Russell Street (one-twelfth each).
[9] As a further term of the settlement agreement, Mr Cassino Doyle, in his capacity as executor of Mr Walter Doyle’s estate, is to pay $10,000 of estate funds to the Commissioner for the cost that he has been put to in responding to the application for relief. Those funds are to be paid, in the first instance, into his instructing solicitor’s trust account, where they are to be held pending the outcome of Mr Wayne Doyle’s appeal against my order that 13 Russell Street be realised to satisfy the profit forfeiture order against him. In the event that Mr Wayne Doyle is unsuccessful, the funds are to be paid to the Commissioner. Alternatively, in the event that he is successful, the funds are to be returned to Mr Walter Doyle’s estate.
Decision
[10] I am satisfied on the basis of the terms of the settlement, including the agreed facts, that the proposed orders for relief sought are appropriate. The grounds for the orders sought are made out under s 66(1). As noted, that section requires the Court to grant relief considered appropriate.
Orders and directions
[11]I make the following orders and directions:5
(a)Ms Charmaine Doyle and the beneficiaries of Mr Grant Doyle’s estate (Mr Kody Doyle and Mr Ricki Nathan) are entitled to relief from the forfeiture of the two-sixths of 13 Russell Street, Freemans Bay, Auckland, held by Mr Walter Doyle’s estate for their benefit, to be given effect by the orders at (b) below.
(b)When discharging the profit forfeiture order made against Mr Wayne Doyle, the Official Assignee shall sell 13 Russell Street for its fair market value, and:
(i)first, deduct from the sale proceeds his reasonable costs in effecting the sale, including the cost of decontaminating the property to a reasonable standard;
(ii)second, make the following payments:
(A)one-sixth of the net proceeds of sale to an account in the name of Ms Charmaine Doyle as nominated in an affidavit sworn or affirmed by her;
(B)one-sixth of the net proceeds of sale to an account in the name of Mr Ricki Nathan as nominated in an affidavit sworn or affirmed by him;
(C)one-sixth of the net proceeds of sale to an account in the name of Mr Kody Doyle as nominated in an affidavit sworn or affirmed by him; and
5 The consequential orders made so that the Official Assignee can give effect to the relief once 13 Russell Street is realised give rise to an amendment to the orders already made by me in respect of 13 Russell Street under s 59(1) of the Act.
(iii)third, apply the remaining one-half of the net proceeds of sale in satisfaction of the profit forfeiture order, in accordance with s 83(1) of the Act.
(c)Mr Cassino Doyle, on or before 6 June 2025, must pay $10,000 to his instructing solicitor’s trust account, to be held pending the determination of Mr Wayne Doyle’s appeal against my profit forfeiture orders in CIV-2017-404-2149, and the direction that 13 Russell Street be disposed of to satisfy those orders.6
(d)At the conclusion of the appeal process, those funds (and any interest) are to be paid:
(i)to the Commissioner of Police in the event 13 Russell Street remains forfeited, in full or in part; or
(ii)to Mr Cassino Doyle, on behalf of the estate of Mr Walter Doyle, in the event 13 Russell Street is not forfeited.
[12] I record (as noted at [4.4] of the joint memorandum) that Mr Wayne Doyle has consented to the orders sought and on the particular terms/conditions recorded. That includes the term that his disavowal of any entitlement to relief he may have in respect of 13 Russell Street is made expressly without prejudice to his right to fully advance his appeal to the Court of Appeal against the orders I made.
Andrew J
6 Commissioner of Police v Doyle, above n 1, at [522]–[533] and [524(ii)].
0