COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v STANDEN [2022] NZHC 42

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v STANDEN [2022] NZHC 42 [26 January 2022]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDCHRISTCHURCH REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROAŌTAUTAHI ROHECIV-2022-409-000015[2022] NZHC 42UNDER the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009IN THE MATTER of an application pursuant to sections 22 and25 of the ActBETWEEN COMMISSIONER OF POLICEApplicantAND DAREN MARK STANDENRespondentAND GERARD EAMON FITZPATRICKInterested PartyAppearances: K South and S J Mallett for ApplicantJudgment: 26 January 2022(Determined on the papers)JUDGMENT OF OSBORNE JThis judgment was delivered by me on 26 January 2022 at 4.00 pmRegistrar/Deputy RegistrarDate:[1] The Commissioner of Police applies (without notice) for restraining ordersunder ss 22 and 25 Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009.[2] The particular property sought to be restrained are two motor vehicles, being a2003 Audi Quattro Sedan (valued between $8000 and $13,900), and a 2008 PorscheCayenne (valued between $25,000 and $39,650).[3] The former is registered to the respondent. The latter is registered to GerardEamon Fitzpatrick, the interested party.[4] The application is supported by an affidavit of Raquel Kendree Wilson, aspecialist investigator attached to the Southern Asset Recovery Unit, within theFinancial Crime Group of the New Zealand Police.[5] Ms Wilson details the circumstances giving rise to charges against therespondent. The respondent was convicted on 21 October 2021 on two charges ofpossession for supply of methamphetamine and amphetamine, and is to be sentencedon 3 March 2022. Ms Wilson refers to her financial investigation of Mr Standen,concluding that he has unlawfully benefited from the sale of methamphetamine by notless than $403,367.97 as evidenced by $226,785 in cash located in his possession,$176,582 in cash deposits and a cash-based lifestyle.[6] Ms Wilson provides history in relation to the two motor vehicles, both of whichwere registered in the name of Mr Standen and had been in his lawful possession. TheAudi Quattro remains registered in Mr Standen's name. The Porsche Cayenne is nowregistered in the name of Mr Fitzpatrick, he being the third registered owner in themonths following its being taken from Mr Standen. On Mr Standen's own writtenstatement, he was the victim of a robbery at the hands of a largely unnamed group ofalleged gang members. That said, Ms Wilson recognises that Mr Fitzpatrick appearsto have paid $20,000 for the Porsche Cayenne.Jurisdiction[7] Under s 25 of the Act, the Court if satisfied it has reasonable grounds to believea respondent has unlawfully benefited from significant criminal activity, may make anorder that specified property not be disposed of, or dealt with, other than is providedfor in the restraining order and is to be under the Official Assignee's custody andcontrol.Decision[8] I am satisfied there are reasonable grounds to believe the property identifiedby Ms Wilson is the respondent's property and that he has unlawfully benefited fromsignificant criminal activity.[9] I am also satisfied that there is a risk the identified property will be disposedof or concealed if notice were given to any or all of the persons who have or appear tohave an interest in the property, including the respondent and the interested party.[10] It is appropriate that the orders sought by the Commissioner be granted.Order[11] I order:(a) The property to which this order applies:(i) is not to be disposed of, or dealt with, other than as is providedfor in the restraining order; and(ii) is to be in the Official Assignee's custody and control.(b) The property to which this order applies is as follows:(i) a 2008 Porsche Cayenne, registration HFJ742, valued atbetween $25,000 and $39,650 and currently registered toGerard Eamon Fitzpatrick, the interested party; and(ii) a 2003 Audi Quattro Sedan, registration MPK920, valued atbetween $8000 and $13,900 and currently registered to DarenStanden, the respondent.Osborne JSolicitors:Raymond Donnelly & Co, Christchurch