COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v REWITA [2017] NZHC 2111
The Court approved the parties' agreed orders under s95 because the settlement returns much of the criminal profit to the Crown and avoids litigation risk and expense; forfeiture and disposal were ordered as agreed and the Commissioner will not pursue the $12,500 shortfall.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] NZHC 2111
- Parties
- Applicant: Commissioner of Police; Respondent: Tai Rewita
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 31 August 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Application Under Criminal Proceeds (recovery) Act 2009 / Application for Approval of Settlement and Profit Forfeiture Orders Under S95 (on the Papers)
- Outcome
- Approved parties' agreed profit forfeiture and disposal orders under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009.
- Legal Topics
- Profit Forfeiture, Restraint and Disposal of Property, Settlement Approval Under S95, Calculation of Maximum Recoverable Amount
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
Tai Rewita
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Application Under Criminal Proceeds (recovery) Act 2009 / Application for Approval of Settlement and Profit Forfeiture Orders Under S95 (on the Papers)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Court should approve the parties' agreed settlement and orders under s95 of the Act
- 2 What is the maximum recoverable amount based on the unlawful benefit
- 3 Whether and how restrained property should be disposed under s83(1) of the Act
Ratio Decidendi
The Court approved the parties' agreed orders under s95 because the settlement returns much of the criminal profit to the Crown and avoids litigation risk and expense; forfeiture and disposal were ordered as agreed and the Commissioner will not pursue the $12,500 shortfall.
Court Disposition
Approved parties' agreed profit forfeiture and disposal orders under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009.
Orders
- Court approves the parties' settlement and the proposed orders under s95 of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009.
- All restrained property (cash, motor vehicles, motorcycles and motorcycle parts) to be disposed of under s83(1) of the Act except a 1987 Harley Davidson (registration 14WAB, value $12,000) and assorted motorcycle parts seized 12 June 2015, which are to be returned to the respondent once the settlement is approved.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v REWITA [2017] NZHC 2111 [31 August 2017]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDROTORUA REGISTRYCIV-2015-463-108[2017] NZHC 2111IN THE MATTER of an application pursuant to CriminalProceeds (Recovery) Act 2009BETWEEN THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICEApplicantAND TAI REWITARespondentHearing: On the papersAppearances: A Hill for ApplicantW T Nabney for RespondentJudgment: 31 August 2017JUDGMENT OF LANG J[on application for profit forfeiture orders]This judgment was delivered by me on 31 August 2017 at 4.30 pm,pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.Registrar/Deputy RegistrarDate[1] In this proceeding the Commissioner of Police (the Commissioner) seeks orders under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (the Act). The parties have reached agreement regarding the orders to be made, and now seek the Court'sapproval in respect of the same under s 95 of the Act.[2] The respondent, Mr Rewita, was found guilty of supplying or being in possession of supply of 221.2 grams of methamphetamine. He was selling this in one or two ounce lots for approximately $12,500 per ounce. The parties agree that during the relevant period of criminal activity Mr Rewita unlawfully benefited to the value of $97,500. This equates to 7.8 ounces at $12,500 per ounce. For that reason the parties agree that the maximum recoverable amount is $97,500.[3] The total value of assets currently under restraint is $85,000. This comprises cash, motor vehicles, motorcycles and motorcycle parts that were seized during the course of the police investigation. The parties have agreed that all of the restrained property is to be disposed of under s 83(1) of the Act with the exception of a 1987 Harley Davidson motorcycle registration number 14WAB (having a value of$12,000) and assorted motorcycle parts that were seized from an address in Tokoroaon 12 June 2015. The value of those items is unknown. The motorcycle andmotorcycle parts are to be returned to Mr Rewita once the Court has approved thesettlement.[4] I am satisfied that the orders that the parties seek are consistent with the purposes of the Act because they return much of the profit derived by Mr Rewita to the Crown. The Commissioner has agreed not to pursue Mr Rewita for the difference between the maximum recoverable amount and the total value of the forfeited property. This reflects the fact that litigation inevitably carries with it risk and expense that can be avoided if the parties reach agreement regarding the orders to be made.[5] I give the Court's approval to the orders as sought.Lang J