COMMISSIONER OF NEW ZEALAND POLICE v AKAVI [2021] NZHC 41

COMMISSIONER OF NEW ZEALAND POLICE v AKAVI [2021] NZHC 41 [1 February 2021]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDWELLINGTON REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHECIV-2019-485-258[2021] NZHC 41UNDER the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009IN THE MATTER of an application under sections 21, 25, 33and 38BETWEEN COMMISSIONER OF NEW ZEALANDPOLICEApplicantAND TEREVA TROY DAVID AKAVIRespondentDAVID MATAMAKI AKAVIFirst Interested PartyJOSHUA ALAN VEKULASecond Interested PartyHearing: 1 February 2021Counsel: V M Rea for ApplicantNo appearance for RespondentNo appearance for First Interested PartyE A Hall for Second Interested PartyJudgment: 1 February 2021ORAL JUDGMENT OF CHURCHMAN J[1] Two documents have been filed in the Court this morning. The first is an On-Notice Application for Further Order Associated with a Restraining Order, theapplication being pursuant to s 33 of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (theAct).[2] That document indicates that the Commissioner of Police seeks the release ofcash in the sum of $1,000 being part of the property specified at [2.4] of the applicant'sOn-Notice Application for Restraining Orders (Prior to Civil Forfeiture Order) dated16 May 2019.[3] The grounds upon which the order is sought is that the first interested party hasnot opposed or taken any steps but the second interested party, Joshua Vekula, has fileda notice of opposition dated 8 July 2019.[4] The second interested party by way of the joint memorandum of counselwithdraws his opposition to the On-Notice Application, and beyond the $1,000, claimsno further interest in any of the restrained property. There is no issue as to costs asbetween parties.[5] Turning now to the joint memorandum of counsel. The contents of thatdocument and the brief submissions of counsel this morning, indicate that a settlementhas been reached between the parties. The memorandum confirms that from theapplicant's perspective, the settlement is a pragmatic one.[6] There is reference to a decision of Muir J in Commissioner of Police vWellington1 where he noted that a settlement which must be approved by the HighCourt under s 95 of the Act is a matter requiring a consideration in the interests ofjustice being a broad inquiry, taking into account the savings of time and costs, andthe litigation risks to the parties. That decision notes that a decision to settleproceedings under the Act can be made on economic and pragmatic grounds, and oftenreflects a common-sense compromise between the parties. I am invited to concludethat such a pragmatic basis exists in the present case.[7] Having reviewed the documents on the file, the memorandum and the briefsubmissions of counsel, I am satisfied that this is an appropriate case to approve thesettlement that is set out in [4]-[7] of the joint memorandum of counsel, and I do so.1 Commissioner of Police v Wellington [2018] NZHC 2502 at [14]-[15].[8] The defended hearing set down for 21 February 2021 in relation to thecontested forfeiture order is vacated as a result of this settlement.[9] The interim restraining order that was extended until today's date is extendedfor a further 12 months from today.Churchman JSolicitors:Crown Solicitor, Wellington for ApplicantCounsel:E A Hall, Wellington for Second Interested Party