COMMISSIONER OF NEW ZEALAND POLICE v ROWLAND [2020] NZHC 791

COMMISSIONER OF NEW ZEALAND POLICE v ROWLAND [2020] NZHC 791 [22 April 2020]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDWELLINGTON REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHECIV-2018-485-166[2020] NZHC 791UNDER the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009IN THE MATTER OF an application under ss 21,24 and 25BETWEEN COMMISSIONER OF NEW ZEALANDPOLICEApplicantAND MATTHEW AARON ROWLANDRespondentASHLEIGH MARIE ZAMMITSecond RespondentNICOLA ELIZABETH ALLENFirst Interested PartyMARTIN ALBERT ZAMMITSecond Interested PartyKIM NICOLA ZAMMITThird Interested PartyHearing: On the PapersCounsel: S B McCusker for ApplicantJudgment: 22 April 2020JUDGMENT OF CLARK J[1] The Commissioner of Police applies for an order under s 59(1)(b) of theCriminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 seeking to have, in essence, a supplementaryclause added to the profit forfeiture order made on 13 December 2019 in respect ofthe first respondent, Matthew Rowland (the December 2019 order).[2] Paragraph 4(c)(i) of the December 2019 order states:All interests in the property situated at 117 Grey Street, Woodville, registeredin the name of Ashleigh Marie Zammit, and described in certificate of titleHBP2/1011, legal description Lot 4 DP 22562, which is unencumbered andunder the effective control of the first respondent (Rowland) (the Grey StreetProperty).[3] The Official Assignee has advised the Commissioner the December 2019 orderrequires a supplementary clause empowering the Official Assignee to execute anydeed or instrument in the name of the registered proprietor of the Grey Street Property,in order to give effect to the December 2019 order.[4] Mr Rowland has not been served with a copy of the application. On behalf ofthe Commissioner, Mr McCusker reports that Mr Rowland's former counsel advisedMr McCusker that his instructions are at an end. Mr McCusker anticipatesconsiderable difficulty attending to personal service of Mr Rowland due to the currentlockdown. Mr McCusker does not say why an application has not been made pursuantto r 6.1A of the High Court (Covid-19 Preparedness) Amendment Rules 2020. Theeffect of r 6.1A is to permit documents to be served by posting to an address or byelectronic means if the conditions in r 6.1A are satisfied.[5] Although the application has not been served, I propose nevertheless to grantthe application for the following two reasons:(a) Mr Rowland consented to the making of property forfeiture orders inrespect of all the property to which the December 2019 orders apply.He also consented to property, including the Grey Street property, beingrealised.(b) The further order sought is merely ancillary to the December 2019order in the sense that the further order simply enables the OfficialAssignee to give effect to the December 2019 order. As Jagose Jcharacterised a similar order made in similar circumstances, the furtherorder is "essentially a mechanical addition to [the December order]".11 Official Assignee v Mihaka [2017] NZHC 2632 at [4].Given the further order does not more that enable the Official Assigneeto accomplish that to which Mr Rowland has already consented,Mr Rowland can have no tenable objection to the application.[6] Accordingly, I make the following order, which is additional to the ProfitForfeiture Order dated 13 December 2019:(a) The Official Assignee (including a person delegated his or herfunctions and powers under the Act) has the power to execute anydeed or instrument in the name of the registered proprietor(s) of thefollowing real property, and to do anything necessary to give validityand operation to the deed or instrument, for the purposes of effectingthe sale of the property pursuant to the profit forfeiture order for firstrespondent (Rowland) dated 13 December 2019:i. All interests in the property situated at 117 Grey Street,Woodville, registered in the name of Ashleigh Marie Zammit,and described in certificate of title HBP2/1011, legaldescription Lot 4 DP 22562._____________________________Karen Clark JSolicitors:Crown Solicitor, Wellington