THE COMMISSIONER OF THE NEW ZEALAND POLICE v RISSMAN & MURPHY [2019] NZHC 2532
The affidavit evidence and appended documents provided reasonable grounds to believe that the specified property and cash were tainted by direct and indirect links to alleged criminal activity and that the respondents had unlawfully benefited, satisfying the statutory threshold in ss 21 and 24 of the Criminal...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] NZHC 2532
- Parties
- Applicant: Commissioner of the New Zealand Police; First Respondent: Mark Winston Rissman; Second Respondent: Melissa Jane Murphy
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 30 September 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Proceeds (recovery) Act Application / Application Under Ss 21 and 24; Oral Judgment at Hearing
- Outcome
- Application granted; orders to issue under ss 21 and 24 of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009
- Legal Topics
- Tainted Property, Unlawful Benefit, Recovery Orders, Ss 21 and 24 Criminal Proceeds (recovery) Act 2009
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 the New Zealand Police
Applicant
Mark Winston Rissman
First Respondent
Melissa Jane Murphy
Second Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceeds (recovery) Act Application / Application Under Ss 21 and 24; Oral Judgment at Hearing
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the property and cash are tainted property within s 5 of the Act
- 2 Whether the respondents have unlawfully benefited from significant criminal activity
- 3 Whether orders under ss 21 and 24 of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 should be made
Ratio Decidendi
The affidavit evidence and appended documents provided reasonable grounds to believe that the specified property and cash were tainted by direct and indirect links to alleged criminal activity and that the respondents had unlawfully benefited, satisfying the statutory threshold in ss 21 and 24 of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009; accordingly the orders sought were properly made.
Court Disposition
Application granted; orders to issue under ss 21 and 24 of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009
Orders
- Orders will issue accordingly in respect of 421 Camerons Road, Marsden, Grey District (Lot 1 DP 497578, RT 735221) and $10,877.80 in cash
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
THE COMMISSIONER OF THE NEW ZEALAND POLICE v RISSMAN & MURPHY [2019] NZHC 2532 [30September 2019]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDCHRISTCHURCH REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROAŌTAUTAHI ROHECIV-2019-418-000023[2019] NZHC 2532BETWEEN THE COMMISSIONER OF THE NEWZEALAND POLICEApplicantAND MARK WINSTON RISSMANFirst RespondentMELISSA JANE MURPHYSecond RespondentHearing: 30 September 2019Counsel: S Mallet for the ApplicantNo appearance for First RespondentNo appearance for Second RespondentJudgment: 30 September 2019ORAL JUDGMENT OF DOOGUE J[1] This is an application made in reliance of ss 21 and 24 of theCriminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (the Act). The grounds on which the order issought are that there are reasonable grounds to believe:(a) the property outlined at [2] of the application, namely421 Camerons Road, Marsden, Grey District, consisting of a35,803 square metre lifestyle property with a dwelling house and farmshed being Lot 1 of Deposited Plan 497578 under theRecord of Title 735221, and $10,877.80 in cash located at thatproperty, are tainted property; and(b) the property is the first and second respondent's property and that thefirst and second respondents have unlawfully benefitted fromsignificant criminal activity.[2] The evidence on which the applicant relies is contained in an extensiveaffidavit of Tracy Margaret Bruce, a police constable holding rank of Detective.Detective Bruce has been a police officer for 25 years and appends to her affidavit anumber of important documents concerning criminal activity that has taken place atthe property that is the subject of this application.[3] It appears on the face of the evidence before me that the property is tainted asthat is defined in s 5 of the Act by virtue of both direct and indirect links with thealleged criminal activity. Based on the authorities cited in the memorandum filed bycounsel, I am satisfied that the orders sought are properly made.[4] Orders will issue accordingly.Doogue JSolicitors:Crown Solicitor, Christchurch