COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v IEREMIA [2020] NZHC 1203

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v IEREMIA [2020] NZHC 1203 [3 June 2020]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHECIV-2020-404-366[2020] NZHC 1203BETWEEN COMMISSIONER OF POLICEApplicantAND ROCKY TOLUFALE IEREMIARespondentHearing: On the papersAppearances: H MacDonald and A Masters for the CommissionerR Mansfield for RespondentJudgment: 3 June 2020JUDGMENT OF LANG J[on application for civil forfeiture ordersunder the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009]This judgment was delivered by me on 3 June 2020 at 11.30 am,pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.Registrar/Deputy RegistrarDateSolicitors:Crown Solicitor, AucklandCounsel:R Mansfield, Barrister, Auckland[1] In this proceeding the Commissioner of Police (the Commissioner) seeksforfeiture orders under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (the Act) againstMr Ieremia. The parties now seek the Court's approval under s 95 of the Act to asettlement of the litigation between them.Background[2] On 28 May 2019 the police executed five search warrants in the greaterAuckland area targeting a drug distribution network. Mr Ieremia was one of thepersons arrested as a result of that operation.[3] When the police searched Mr Ieremia's home address they discovered $49,660in cash (the cash), 56 grams of methamphetamine and two sets of digital scales. Themethamphetamine and cash were found concealed within multiple layers of plasticbags that were wrapped within a duvet lying next to Mr Ieremia's bed. Themethamphetamine had a purity of 80 per cent and would have cost approximately$16,800 to acquire.[4] On 7 February 2020 Mr Ieremia pleaded guilty to a charge of being inpossession of the methamphetamine for the purposes of supplying it to others. He isto be sentenced on that charge in the District Court on 3 July 2020.The proposed settlement[5] The proposed settlement is on the following terms:(a) The Court will make an assets forfeiture order under s 50(1) of the Actby consent in relation to the cash and any accrued interest; and(b) The Commissioner will not seek a profit forfeiture order against MrIremeia; and(c) The costs of the present proceeding are to lie where they fall.Decision[6] I am satisfied the proposed settlement recognises the primary purpose of theAct, which is to provide for forfeiture of property derived directly or indirectly fromsignificant criminal activity, or property representing the value of a person'sunlawfully derived income.1[7] The proposed settlement removes from Mr Ieremia's possession andownership the whole of the cash found in close proximity to the methamphetamine.The cash was in all likelihood derived from previous drug-related transactions. Theproposed settlement also allows the parties to have certainty and control as to theoutcome of the present litigation.[8] I therefore approve the proposed settlement and make an assets forfeiture orderby consent under s 50(1) of the Act in relation to the cash seized by the police fromMr Ieremia's property together with any interest accrued thereon.[9] The costs in the present proceeding are to lie where they fall.[10] I record that the Commissioner will not pursue the application for a profitforfeiture order against Mr Ieremia, and that the orders now made by consent are infull and final settlement of the present proceeding.[11] I vacate the listing of this matter on 4 June 2020 and excuse attendances onthat date.Lang J1 Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009, s 31(a) and (b).