POLICE v DIXON [2015] NZHC 2200
On the evidence—affidavits from investigators and the respondent's admission in a video interview—the cash of $49,900 was tainted and the respondent had unlawfully benefited from significant criminal activity, therefore the grounds for the forfeiture orders were established and the draft orders were made.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] NZHC 2200
- Parties
- Applicant: Commissioner of Police; Respondent: Robert William Dixon; First Interested Party: Lauren Bridgette Lanfear
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 11 September 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Asset Recovery (forfeiture) / Judgment on Application
- Outcome
- Application granted; order made in terms of the draft order dated 28 May 2015.
- Legal Topics
- Tainted Property, Cash Smuggling, Muling, Forfeiture Orders, Unopposed Application
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
Robert William Dixon
Respondent
Lauren Bridgette Lanfear
First Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Civil Asset Recovery (forfeiture) / Judgment on Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the cash of $49,900 constituted tainted property
- 2 Whether the respondent unlawfully benefited from significant criminal activity
- 3 Whether the orders in the application dated 28 May 2015 should be made
Ratio Decidendi
On the evidence—affidavits from investigators and the respondent's admission in a video interview—the cash of $49,900 was tainted and the respondent had unlawfully benefited from significant criminal activity, therefore the grounds for the forfeiture orders were established and the draft orders were made.
Court Disposition
Application granted; order made in terms of the draft order dated 28 May 2015.
Orders
- Order made in terms of the draft order lodged by the applicant dated 28 May 2015
- Property specified as cash to the value of $49,900 declared tainted and subject to the orders in the draft order
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
POLICE v DIXON [2015] NZHC 2200 [11 September 2015]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDPALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRYCIV 2015-454-61[2015] NZHC 2200BETWEEN THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICEApplicantAND ROBERT WILLIAM DIXONRespondentAND LAUREN BRIDGETTE LANFEARFirst Interested PartyHearing: 10 September 2015Counsel: E M Fitzherbert for ApplicantNo Appearance by RespondentJudgment: 11 September 2015JUDGMENT OF BROWN J[1] When this matter was called on 21 July 2015 the respondent Mr Dixon appeared and sought further time to enable him to instruct counsel. The matter was adjourned to today and Ms FitzHerbert informs me that Justice MacKenzie indicated to Mr Dixon that it would be necessary for him to be prepared to proceed today.[2] There is no appearance today by Mr Dixon or by counsel instructed by him. Ms FitzHerbert has received no further communication from Mr Dixon nor has there been any communication by Mr Dixon to the Court. In those circumstances Ms FitzHerbert requests that the Court make the orders sought in the application dated 28 May 2015.[3] The application is supported by an affidavit of Detective Senior Sergeant B A Murray who is the manager of the Central and Southern Asset Recovery Unit in the New Zealand Police and an affidavit of Mr G R Beattie, a financial investigator attached to the Central Asset Recovery Unit.[4] In short it is apparent from their evidence that Mr Dixon was involved in a"muling" operation involving the smuggling of cash. In a video interview with thePolice Mr Dixon admitted that he received money from a person he refused to nameand that he was to take the money for a "run" to Wellington. A copy of the transcriptof the video interview was annexed to the affidavit of Mr Beattie.[5] Detective Sergeant Murray expresses the view on the basis of the evidencethat Mr Dixon was clearly acting as a cash smuggling "mule" for an unknown drugsyndicate.[6] On the basis of the evidence adduced it is my view that the property specified in the application, namely cash to the value of $49,900, is tainted property and that Mr Dixon has unlawfully benefited from significant criminal activity. Accordingly the grounds are established for the orders sought in the application dated 28 May 2015.[7] An order is made in terms of the draft order lodged by the applicant._______________________Brown JSolicitors:Ben Vanderkolk & Associates, Crown Solicitors, Palmerston North