COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v BACKHOUSE [2022] NZHC 144
A restraining order was appropriate and was made by consent in the terms of the draft order attached to the parties' joint memorandum; the consent did not resolve or prejudice future forfeiture proceedings.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] NZHC 144
- Parties
- Applicant: Commissioner of Police; Respondent: Kurt Backhouse
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 10 February 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Restraining Order Application Under the Criminal Proceeds (recovery) Act 2009 / On Notice Restraining Order Application; Consent Order Made by the High Court on 10 February 2022
- Outcome
- Restraining order made by consent under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 in the terms of the draft order attached to the joint memorandum dated 9 February 2022.
- Legal Topics
- Restraining Order, Forfeiture Proceedings, Consent Order
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
Kurt Backhouse
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Restraining Order Application Under the Criminal Proceeds (recovery) Act 2009 / On Notice Restraining Order Application; Consent Order Made by the High Court on 10 February 2022
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether an on-notice restraining order should be made under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009
- 2 Whether the respondent's consent to a restraining order can be given without prejudice to future forfeiture proceedings
Ratio Decidendi
A restraining order was appropriate and was made by consent in the terms of the draft order attached to the parties' joint memorandum; the consent did not resolve or prejudice future forfeiture proceedings.
Court Disposition
Restraining order made by consent under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 in the terms of the draft order attached to the joint memorandum dated 9 February 2022.
Orders
- On-notice restraining order granted as per draft order annexed to counsel's joint memorandum dated 9 February 2022; respondent's consent recorded as without prejudice to any future forfeiture application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v BACKHOUSE [2022] NZHC 144 [10 February 2022]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDWELLINGTON REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHECIV-2021-485-010[2022] NZHC 144UNDER the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009IN THE MATTER OF applications under sections 21, 24 and 25BETWEEN COMMISSIONER OF POLICEApplicantAND KURT BACKHOUSERespondentOn the papers:Counsel: S B McCusker and V M Rae for ApplicantK Preston for RespondentJudgment: 10 February 2022JUDGMENT OF CHURCHMAN J[1] On 20 December 2021, the applicant applied on notice for restraining ordersunder the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (the Act).[2] The application is listed for first call in the Judge's Chamber's List (JCL) on14 February 2022.[3] Counsel for the applicant and counsel for the respondent filed a jointmemorandum dated 9 February 2022. Also annexed to the memorandum was a draftorder making the orders sought by the applicant.[4] The joint memorandum recorded that the respondent consents to the restrainingorder sought by the applicant without prejudice to his position in relation to any futureforfeiture application.Outcome[5] By consent, I make the on notice restraining order sought by the applicant inthe terms set out in the draft order attached to counsel's joint memorandum.Churchman JSolicitors:Crown Solicitor, Wellington for Applicantcc: K F Preston, Barrister, Wellington for Respondent