New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Drug offending

Legal area

Court

17 Nov 2022

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v NGUYEN [2022] NZHC 3008

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3008
Court

High Court

The Court was satisfied the without‑notice threshold was met because notice would risk dissipation or alteration of the assets; the affidavits supplied reasonable grounds that the specified real estate and vehicles were tainted or obtained property and that respondents had unlawfully benefited from significant criminal activity; accordingly a restraining order placing the assets in the custody and control of the Official Assignee was justified to preserve them for potential forfeiture.
31 Oct 2022

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v DAVIES [2022] NZHC 2814

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2814
Court

High Court

On the balance of probabilities the cash sums of $6,010 and $35,440 were tainted property derived from criminal activity (including sale of illegal drugs) given their discovery with drugs, scales and weapons, implausible explanations, and unexplained bank records; therefore an assets forfeiture order under s 50 was appropriate and the cash vests in the Crown.
8 Jun 2021

R v WILLIAMS [2021] NZHC 1338

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1338
Court

High Court

The offender occupied a significant facilitative financial role in a large-scale methamphetamine operation, aggravated by personal gain and exceptional premeditation via cryptocurrency arrangements; a starting point of 3 years and 3 months imprisonment was appropriate, reduced by a 20% guilty plea discount, a 5% allowance for childhood trauma and a reduction approximating four months for time on electronically monitored bail, giving a final sentence of 2 years and 1 month imprisonment; home detention was not appropriate.
7 Oct 2020

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v SMITH (TYE) [2020] NZHC 2634

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2634
Court

High Court

On the balance of probabilities the vehicle (and proceeds of its sale) and the seized cash were tainted property derived from significant criminal activity (drug offending and/or offending acquiring property exceeding $30,000); therefore under s 50(1) the court must make assets forfeiture orders vesting the specified amounts in the Crown and placing them in the custody and control of the Official Assignee.
20 Jun 2013

SOLICITOR-GENERAL v DODD [2013] NZHC 1489

Citation

[2013] NZHC 1489
Court

High Court

On the balance of probabilities the Crown established derived benefits of $10,200 (admitted money laundering), $3,500 (methamphetamine offers assumed to have resulted in sales) and $940 (cannabis offers assumed to have resulted in sales) yielding a pecuniary penalty of $14,640 under s25; the Crown failed to prove effective control of the motorcycle by respondent under s29(1) so the s29(3) declaration was refused.
17 Dec 2009

GOLLOP V R SC 104/2009

Citation

SC 104/2009
Court

Supreme Court

The application for leave is dismissed because the trial evidence supported the sentencing judge's finding on scale, the sentencing judge considered counsel's submissions so s 30 was not breached, and no issue of general or public importance or substantial miscarriage of justice arises.

New Zealand Case Law

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v NGUYEN [2022] NZHC 3008

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v DAVIES [2022] NZHC 2814

R v WILLIAMS [2021] NZHC 1338

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v SMITH (TYE) [2020] NZHC 2634

SOLICITOR-GENERAL v DODD [2013] NZHC 1489

GOLLOP V R SC 104/2009