POLICE v HEKE [2021] NZHC 1620
By consent under s 95 the Court ordered forfeiture of $24,080 as tainted property on the basis it was acquired from alleged significant criminal activity, and declined to award costs having regard to the respondent's impecuniosity and the public interest in the settlement.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] NZHC 1620
- Parties
- Applicant: Commissioner of the New Zealand Police; Respondent: Reagan Manu John Heke
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 1 July 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Asset Forfeiture Proceeding / Hearing — Consent Settlement and Order Made
- Outcome
- Forfeiture order made for $24,080; no order as to costs.
- Legal Topics
- Forfeiture Order, Tainted Property, Significant Criminal Activity, Settlement Under S 95
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
Reagan Manu John Heke
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Asset Forfeiture Proceeding / Hearing — Consent Settlement and Order Made
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether $24,080 was tainted property acquired from significant criminal activity (dealing in methamphetamine)
- 2 Whether an asset forfeiture order should be made
- 3 Whether costs should be awarded given respondent's impecuniosity and public interest considerations
Ratio Decidendi
By consent under s 95 the Court ordered forfeiture of $24,080 as tainted property on the basis it was acquired from alleged significant criminal activity, and declined to award costs having regard to the respondent's impecuniosity and the public interest in the settlement.
Court Disposition
Forfeiture order made for $24,080; no order as to costs.
Orders
- Forfeiture of $24,080 located at an address in Dunedin.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
POLICE v HEKE [2021] NZHC 1620 [1 July 2021]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDDUNEDIN REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROAŌTEPOTI ROHECIV-2019-412-000112[2021] NZHC 1620BETWEEN THE COMMISSIONER OF THE NEWZEALAND POLICEApplicantAND REAGAN MANU JOHN HEKERespondentHearing: 1 July 2021Appearances: C E R Power for the ApplicantB P Kilkelly for the RespondentJudgment: 1 July 2021JUDGMENT OF NATION J[1] The Commissioner in the proceedings before the Court sought the forfeiture of$24,080 located at an address in Dunedin on 14 May 2018. That forfeiture was soughton the basis it had been acquired from significant criminal activity, namely dealing inmethamphetamine, and it was therefore tainted property. Mr Heke had indicated hewas going to oppose the application but today, when the proceedings were to be heard,he has endorsed a settlement and agreed to the making of an asset forfeiture order asto the $24,080 obviously on the basis it has been acquired from the alleged significantcriminal activity.[2] I consider the settlement is in accordance with s 95 of the Act.[3] I accordingly make orders as set out in the draft document that was providedto the Court this morning.[4] The Commissioner had indicated he would be seeking an order for costs but Ihave regard to Mr Heke's circumstances, the fact he is impecunious. This settlementis in the public interest.[5] In the circumstances, I make no order as to costs.Solicitors:Crown Solicitor's Office, DunedinB Kilkelly, Barrister, Dunedin.