ATTORNEY-GENERAL v TRAN [2017] NZHC 2293

ATTORNEY-GENERAL v TRAN [2017] NZHC 2293 [21 September 2017]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHECIV-2017-404-140[2017] NZHC 2293BETWEEN THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEWZEALANDApplicantAND TAMMY HUY TRANRespondentHearing: 13 September 2017Counsel: T Bellingham for ApplicantNo appearance for DefendantJudgment: 21 September 2017JUDGMENT OF WHATA JThis judgment was delivered by me on 21 September 2017 at 4.00 pm,pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.Registrar/Deputy RegistrarDate: .Solicitors: Meredith Connell, Auckland[1] This matter came before me on the Duty Judge List. Having read the papers and heard from counsel, I was satisfied the following orders sought by the Attorney- General should be granted:(a) that satisfaction be entered upon the judgment dated 14 March 2017 for the sum of $20,000, plus $10 in costs and all and any interest earned on that sum since its deposit; and as a consequence(b) the Registrar of this Court is directed to release to the Crown the sum of $20,000 plus all and any interest earned on that sum since its deposit into this Court.[2] I now set out my reasons, which are largely the grounds upon which the applications are made.Background[3] On 14 May 2006, Mr Tran was arrested on charges under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. Mr Tran was subsequently indicted on charges of possession of a Class B drug for supply, possession of a Class A drug and possession of utensils. On 10 April 2007, Mr Tran made an application for bail and, on 8 May, the High Court at Auckland granted him bail on the following conditions:(a) Mr Tran was to reside at his parents' property;(b) Mr Tran's family or an associate of his family would provide the sumof $20,000 by way of recognisance prior to his release from custody; this sum was to be held by the Registrar of the High Court in an interest-bearing account; and(c) Mr Tran was on a curfew between the hours of 7.00 pm and 6.00 am daily.[4] Ms Huang Xin was named as surety, and on 10 May 2007 paid the sum into the account of the High Court Registry.Breach of bail[5] On 31 January 2008, Mr Tran was found by the Police at a property, attempting to break into a consignment of marble tiles in which a Class C drug, pseudoephedrine, had been secreted. As a result of this incident and a subsequentPolice search of Mr Tran's vehicle, Mr Tran was charged with importing the Class C drug, pseudoephedrine, three charges of possession for sale of methamphetamine, a charge of possession of equipment capable of being used in the manufacture of methamphetamine, and one charge of possession of two pipes for the purpose of consumption of methamphetamine.[6] Following a trial in December 2009, he was found guilty of the charges of possession for the sale of pseudoephedrine and one charge of possession of two pipes for the purpose of consumption of methamphetamine. He was acquitted of the remaining charges.Forfeiture[7] Forfeiture of the recognisance occurred upon the breach of the bail by operation of law. On 14 March 2017, this Court certified forfeiture of the sum of $20,000 plus all and any interest which had taken place, in accordance with s 21 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1950. The judgment was sealed in favour of the Crown for the sum of $20,000, plus all and any interest on the sum since its deposit and $10 in costs. The sum was to be released upon proof of service.Service[8] On 30 August 2017, Mr Tran was served with, among other things, the present application. On 29 August 2017, Ms Xin was also served with, among other things, the application.Orders[9] Given the foregoing and the failure of Mr Tran or Ms Xin to offer any opposition, orders as sought by the Attorney-General were granted.