THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v HADFIELD [2021] NZHC 3506
On the material filed (including affidavits subsequently sworn) and given the respondent's lack of opposition and valid service, the cash was established as tainted property under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 and an assets forfeiture order was warranted; accordingly the Court made the assets forfeiture...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] NZHC 3506
- Parties
- Applicant: Commissioner of Police; Respondent: Aroha Rangimarie Hadfield
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 16 December 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Application Under Criminal Proceeds (recovery) Act 2009 / Hearing at Duty Judge List and Judgment (assets Forfeiture Application)
- Outcome
- Assets forfeiture order granted in respect of $90,050 cash; affidavits accepted for filing; profits forfeiture not pursued by Applicant following order.
- Legal Topics
- Assets Forfeiture, Tainted Property, Restraining Order, Profits Forfeiture, Admissibility of Affidavits
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Commissioner of Police
Applicant
Aroha Rangimarie Hadfield
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Application Under Criminal Proceeds (recovery) Act 2009 / Hearing at Duty Judge List and Judgment (assets Forfeiture Application)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether $90,050 cash recovered from respondent constituted tainted property under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009
- 2 Whether the Court should make an assets forfeiture order in respect of the cash
- 3 Whether affidavits filed unsworn could be accepted given COVID-19 constraints
Ratio Decidendi
On the material filed (including affidavits subsequently sworn) and given the respondent's lack of opposition and valid service, the cash was established as tainted property under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 and an assets forfeiture order was warranted; accordingly the Court made the assets forfeiture order and accepted the affidavits for filing under r 9.73(4).
Court Disposition
Assets forfeiture order granted in respect of $90,050 cash; affidavits accepted for filing; profits forfeiture not pursued by Applicant following order.
Orders
- Assets forfeiture order granted as sought in the Commissioner's application in respect of $90,050 cash
- Affidavits accepted for filing pursuant to High Court Rules 2016 r 9.73(4)
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v HADFIELD [2021] NZHC 3506 [16 December 2021]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHECIV 2021-404-002261[2021] NZHC 3506UNDER Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009BETWEEN THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICEApplicantAND AROHA RANGIMARIE HADFIELDRespondentHearing: 16 December 2021Appearances: R M Gibbs for the ApplicantNo appearance by the DefendantJudgment: 16 December 2021JUDGMENT OF VAN BOHEMEN JThis judgment was delivered by me on 16 December 2021 at 4.00pmPursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court RulesRegistrar/Deputy RegistrarSolicitors/Counsel:Crown Solicitor (Meredith Connell), AucklandCopy to the RespondentIntroduction[1] On 24 November 2021, the Commissioner of Police filed an application for:(a) a profits forfeiture order; or, in the alternative,(b) an assets forfeiture order or, in the alternative,(c) a restraining orderagainst Aroha Rangimarie Hadfield pursuant to the Criminal Proceeds(Recovery) Act 2009.[2] The application arises out of an investigation into the unlawful removal of ashipping container from a Customs Controlled Area at the Ports of Auckland on 1July2021 and the recovery of $90,050.00 in cash (the Cash) on 11 July 2019 from thehome of Ms Hadfield, who had been employed as an Operations Controller at thecontainer terminal at the Port.[3] Following the Customs investigation, Ms Hadfield was charged with andpleaded guilty to offences under ss 86(1)(a) of the Customs and Excise Act 2018, inrelation to the unauthorised removal of goods from a Customs Controlled Area, ands 249(1)(a) of the Crimes Act1961 for accessing a computer system for a dishonestpurpose.[4] Filed with the Commissioner's application were unsworn affidavits dated23 November 2021 by Detective Nicholas Davenport, Senior Customs Officer TuiRapana; and Customs Technical Specialist Christie Thompson (the Affidavits). TheAffidavits were accompanied by a memorandum of counsel for the Commissioner ofthe same date seeking a direction that the Affidavits be accepted for filing because theconstraints of the COVID-19 restrictions have prevented the affidavits being sworn oraffirmed.[5] As requested, I direct that the Affidavits be accepted for filing in accordancewith r 9.73(4) of the High Court Rules 2016, I direct that Affidavits be accepted forfiling.[6] In an affidavit sworn on 3 December 2021, Detective Davenport says he servedthe application and the Affidavits personally on Ms Hadfield on 25 November 2021and advised her that the application was to be called in the High Court on 16 December2021. Ms Hadfield told the Detective she did not oppose "the Commissioner'sapplication for the restraint and forfeiture of the cash seized from my home" and didnot wish to appeal at the call on 16 December 2021 and said she was happy for futuredocuments to be served on her by email. Ms Hadfield signed a statement to that effectin Detective's notebook. A copy of the signed statement was exhibited to theDetective's affidavit.[7] The Affidavits have since been sworn – on 10 December 2021 by Ms Rapanaand Ms Thompson and on 13 December by Detective Davenport – and filed in Court.Copies of the sworn Affidavits have been emailed to Ms Hadfield, as confirmed by anaffidavit sworn by Helena Rose Santos on 15 December 2021.[8] The Commissioner's application was called at the Duty Judge List on16 December 2021. Ms Hadfield was not represented.[9] Ms Gibbs, counsel for the Commissioner, submitted that there was a sufficientbasis for the Court to make the assets forfeiture order in the Commissioner'sapplication in respect of the Cash and confirmed that, if that order was made, theCommissioner would not pursue the profits forfeiture order.[10] On the basis of the Affidavits and the information in the further affidavit ofDetective Davenport, I am satisfied that the Cash is tainted property in terms of theCriminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act.Order[11] Accordingly, I make the assets forfeiture order set out in the Commissioner'sapplication.______________________G J van Bohemen J