COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v HAHN [2021] NZHC 1870

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v HAHN [2021] NZHC 1870 [23 July 2021]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDINVERCARGILL REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROAWAIHŌPAI ROHECIV-2021-425-44[2021] NZHC 1870BETWEEN COMMISSIONER OF POLICEApplicantAND TIMO HAHNRespondentAppearances: R W Donnelly for Applicant(No appearance for Respondent)Judgment: 23 July 2021(Determined on the papers)JUDGMENT OF OSBORNE JThis judgment was delivered by me on 23 July 2021 at 11.00 am pursuant to Rule 11.5of the High Court RulesRegistrar/Deputy RegistrarDate:[1] The Commissioner of Police has applied for an Asset Forfeiture Order underthe Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009.Application to dispense with service[2] The Commissioner now applies for orders dispensing with the requirement toserve the proceeding upon the respondent and permitting the Commissioner to proceedas if service had been effected.[3] The application is made on the grounds that reasonable efforts have been madeto effect service on the respondent and that the documents have come to his attention.[4] The application is supported by an affidavit of Detective Christopher Maitland,attached to the Financial Crime Group, New Zealand Police, Southern Asset RecoveryUnit.[5] Detective Maitland deposes that the respondent is a German national who hasvisited New Zealand several times, residing in Queenstown, but was subsequently inNovember 2020 deported to Germany.[6] Detective Maitland refers to attempts to communicate with the respondent byemail and to thereby provide him with copies of the proceedings. Since the proceedingwas issued he has also endeavoured to email the respondent as to the change of datefor the first call of the proceeding.[7] Detective Maitland has had no communication back from the respondent buthas received confirmation that the delivery of the material emails was complete.[8] In June 2021, counsel for the Commissioner received an email from anInvercargill solicitor, Roger Eagles. Mr Eagles stated that he had received a requestfrom the respondent to represent him in this proceeding. Mr Eagles was uncertainwhether he would be able to act for the respondent, and had only an email address forcontact. Mr Eagles has not subsequently indicated an ability to act in the matter.[9] Detective Maitland has accordingly now sent to the respondent at the emailaddresses he has the further documents filed in this proceeding and a Minute issuedby the Court. There has again been no response to those emails although delivery wasrecorded as complete.[10] Detective Maitland refers to his attempt to otherwise locate the whereabouts ofthe respondent and I am satisfied that reasonable efforts have not identified furthercontact details. I am nonetheless satisfied, from the email records, that the respondentwill have seen the documents emailed to him.The service regime[11] Under Regulation 12, Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009, the Court maydispense with service of the application in this proceeding if satisfied that reasonableefforts have been made to effect service of documents under the Act by permittedmodes and either that the document has come to the knowledge of the respondent orthat prompt personal service cannot be effected. Regulation 12(2) permits the Courtto make the orders which I will be making.[12] I am so satisfied.Orders[13] I order:(a) service upon the respondent of the documents filed in this proceedingis dispensed with;(b) the applicant has leave to proceed as if service of the documents hadbeen effected on the respondent;(c) a copy of this order is to be sent by email to the respondent at the emailaddresses known to the applicant and at the same time by email toRoger Eagles;(d) the substantive application is now to be dealt with on the papers by wayof formal proof;(e) the costs of the interlocutory application are reserved; and(f) the telephone conference scheduled for 26 July 2021 is vacated.Osborne JSolicitors:Crown Solicitor, InvercargillCopy to:Timo Hahn