THE COMMISSIONER, THE NEW ZEALAND POLICE v BLANCE & ORS [2019] NZHC 2457

THE COMMISSIONER, THE NEW ZEALAND POLICE v BLANCE & ORS [2019] NZHC 2457 [27September 2019]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDWELLINGTON REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHECIV-2017-485-197[2019] NZHC 2457UNDER the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009IN THE MATTER of an application pursuant to sections 43, 44,52 and 58BETWEEN THE COMMISSIONER, THE NEWZEALAND POLICEApplicantAND STEVEN ALBERT BLANCEFirst RespondentJASON LANCE WALKERSecond RespondentTRACEY MELANIE SNOOKFirst Interested PartyHAYLEY KINI-WAI KIRWANThird Interested PartyTANYA MICHELLE GRACEFifth Interested PartyROBERT SHANE BROMLEYSixth Interested PartyKARL WILLIAM GRUEBNERSeventh Interested PartyDAVID ALASTAIR MINKEEighth Interested PartyHearing: On the PapersCounsel: S B McCusker for ApplicantK J Jefferies for Second RespondentJudgment: 27 September 2019JUDGMENT OF CLARK JIntroduction[1] The Commissioner of Police has applied for a profit forfeiture order againstthe first and second respondents. The Commissioner now seeks approval of aproposed settlement with the second respondent, Mr Walker, under s 95 of theCriminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (the Act).[2] The subject of the forfeiture application is a 2003 Ford Falcon, registrationGTP340, registered in Mr Walker's name (the Falcon).Background[3] In June 2018 Mr Blance was sentenced to 14 years, six months imprisonmentafter pleading guilty to various charges related to the possession and supply ofmethamphetamine. The summary of facts recorded that Mr Blance purchased 15kg ofmethamphetamine from Auckland suppliers and on-supplied to associates within hisdistribution networks.[4] On 12 April 2017 the Commissioner filed an application for restraining andeffective control orders in respect of various vehicles, including the Falcon. WhileMr Walker was the registered owner of the Falcon, Police had observed Mr Blancedriving it on five occasions in early 2017. Following further inquiries, theCommissioner determined that Mr Walker was also involved in the supply ofmethamphetamine and he was joined as a party to this proceeding.[5] In a judgment delivered 12 February 2018 Dobson J declared he was satisfiedMr Walker was implicated in the receipt of methamphetamine and found there werereasonable grounds for a belief that Mr Walker had unlawfully benefitted fromsignificant criminal activity.1 Dobson J accordingly granted a restraining order inrespect of the Falcon.2The proposed settlement[6] The parties have now agreed to settle the question of forfeiture of the restrainedproperty on the terms set out in a joint memorandum dated 19 September 2019.[7] Under s 95(3) of the Act, the High Court must approve a settlement if it issatisfied it is consistent with the purposes of the Act and the overall interests of justice.The primary purpose of the Act is to establish a regime for the forfeiture of propertythat has either been derived directly or indirectly from significant criminal activity, orthat represents the value of a person's unlawfully derived income.3[8] Under the proposed settlement, the Falcon will be forfeited to theCommissioner. Upon the granting of the order, the registration plates from the Falcon(registration GTP340) will be returned to Mr Walker. The licence plate is valued atonly $599 and the time and cost of continuing proceedings against Mr Walker inrespect of the plate would vastly outweigh its actual value.[9] For the following reasons, I am satisfied the proposed settlement is consistentwith the purposes of the Act and with the overall interests of justice:(a) The Commissioner and Mr Walker agree that Mr Walker has beeninvolved in significant criminal activity.(b) Mr Walker received an unlawful benefit of $240,000 from hissignificant criminal activity.4(c) The value of the Falcon is estimated at $25,000 — approximately 10%of the total benefit. The Commissioner is unaware of any other assets1 Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009, s 24; Commissioner of Police v Blance [2018] NZHC108 at [6] and [21].2 At [22].3 Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009, s 3(1).4 Section 53.held by Mr Walker that might be able to make up the shortfall.(d) Not pursuing the licence plate is in the interests of expediency.(e) There will be significant savings of time and cost if Mr Walker'sinterests in the proceeding can be resolved by consent without the needfor litigation. An agreed settlement will also provide certainty ofoutcome.[10] Accordingly the settlement is approved and the following orders are made:(a) The following property is forfeited to the Commissioner:• A 2003 Ford Falcon motor vehicle, including ignition keys,registration GTP340 registered in the name of the secondrespondent.(b) The applicant is to remove and return the registration plate GTP340 tothe second respondent.(c) The order is in full and final settlement of the proceedings against thesecond respondent.(d) Costs lie where they fall._____________________________Karen Clark JSolicitors:Crown Solicitor, Wellington