New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Instrument of crime

Legal area

Court

30 Sept 2022

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v FARQUHAR [2022] NZHC 2506

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2506
Court

High Court

The Court accepted the police evidence of cultivation, seized drugs and cash and the financial analysis showing unexplained deposits and proceeds; those materials gave reasonable grounds to conclude 14 Mulford Street was an instrument of crime and that the respondent had unlawfully benefited (estimated not less than $165,000), and accordingly the restraining orders in the draft were granted.
10 Oct 2019

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v TANIORA [2019] NZHC 2580

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2580
Court

High Court

Where instrument-of-crime forfeiture under the Sentencing Act overlaps with civil forfeiture under the CPR Act, the sentencing court should normally determine instrument-of-crime forfeiture and relief before the High Court proceeds with civil forfeiture; accordingly the High Court declined to approve the s95 settlement and declined to make the proposed forfeiture orders, and extended the restraining orders for six months to allow the District Court sentencing and related determinations to proceed.
24 Oct 2018

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v SNOW [2018] NZHC 2750

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2750
Court

High Court

On the affidavit evidence there were reasonable grounds to find the property was tainted and an instrument of crime used for cultivation and distribution of cannabis, and there was a real risk of disposal if the respondents were notified, therefore a without‑notice interim restraining order placing the property in the official assignee's custody was justified.
13 May 2016

The Commissioner of Police v Ireland [2016] NZHC 968

Citation

[2016] NZHC 968
Court

High Court

The court approved the parties' settlement because, on the sworn evidence and corroborative affidavits, the settlement was consistent with the purposes of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 and the overall interests of justice: the cash was forfeited, the vehicle was returned to its registered owners, and the application for profit forfeiture against the respondent was dismissed.
12 Dec 2012

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE V MCGREGOR & Anor HC INV CIV-2011-425-566

Citation

openlaw-58449fa3_9228_482a_8738_64268bc4ca86.pdf
Court

High Court

Because s40(2)(b) did not apply, the restraining order would expire under s37(1)(a); s41 authorises extension and the Court was satisfied the applicant established grounds for extension pending trial, therefore an interim extension was granted for three months from 12 December 2012.
12 Dec 2011

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE V MCGREGOR HC INV CIV-2011-425-000566

Citation

openlaw-766d60e4_f0f6_4b1c_bf6d_407a81fc8fa0.pdf
Court

High Court

Because the respondents were served, the respondent faces a qualifying instrument forfeiture offence, and the unopposed evidence establishes the property was used for commercial cannabis operations, the court will grant a restraint order over the property pending determination of the vesting application, conditional on service on the Official Assignee.

New Zealand Case Law

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v FARQUHAR [2022] NZHC 2506

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v TANIORA [2019] NZHC 2580

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v SNOW [2018] NZHC 2750

The Commissioner of Police v Ireland [2016] NZHC 968

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE V MCGREGOR & Anor HC INV CIV-2011-425-566

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE V MCGREGOR HC INV CIV-2011-425-000566