Commissioner, New Zealand Police v Blance

Case [2019] NZHC 2225


IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2017-485-197

[2019] NZHC 2225

UNDER the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009

IN THE MATTER

of an application pursuant to sections 21, 25 and 58

BETWEEN

THE COMMISSIONER, NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Applicant

AND

STEVEN ALBERT BLANCE

First Respondent

AND

JASON LANCE WALKER

Second Respondent

AND

TRACEY MELANIE SNOOK

First Interested Party

AND

THE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED

Second Interested Party

AND

HAYLEY KINI-WAI KIRWAN

Third Interested Party

AND

TANYA MICHELLE GRACE

Fifth Interested Party

AND

ROBERT SHANE BROMLEY

Sixth Interested Party

AND

KARL WILLIAM GRUEBNER

Seventh Interested Party

AND

DAVID ALASTAIR MINKE

Eighth Interested Party

On the papers:

Counsel:

S B McCusker for Applicant

THE COMMISSIONER, NEW ZEALAND POLICE v STEVEN ALBERT BLANCE [2019] NZHC 2225 [5

September 2019]

Judgment: 5 September 2019

JUDGMENT OF CHURCHMAN J


[1]                 On 12 April 2017, the Commissioner applied for restraining and effective control orders in relation to seven different motor vehicles, a speed boat, two outboard motors and boat trailer, and a further outboard motor.

[2]                 The various vehicles and items were either registered in the names of, or under the control of, various different people who are listed as interested parties to these proceedings.

[3]                 Some of the applications were opposed and at least one vehicle has been the subject of a sale order following a defended hearing before Dobson J in February 2018.1 Other defended applications are yet to be resolved.

[4]                 In a minute dated 20 August 2019, Grice J made certain timetable orders in relation to the outstanding defended matters.

[5]                 There are three vehicles as well as an outboard motor in respect of which sale orders have been sought, and there has been no opposition.

[6]                 In her minute of 20 August 2019, Grice J directed that the Commissioner file submissions setting out a full background to the application in respect of these vehicles and outboard motor, confirmation that no opposition had been filed in respect of these vehicles and outboard motor, and a chronology. Grice J indicated that if this material was filed, the applications in respect of these items may be dealt with on the papers.

[7]                 On 3 September 2019, counsel for the Commissioner filed a chronology and detailed submissions. Also filed was a draft order.


1      The Commissioner, New Zealand Police v Blance [2018] NZHC 108.

[8]                 Having reviewed this documentation, I am satisfied that there is no opposition to the orders sought in respect of the three motor vehicles detailed in the draft order, and the Yamaha outboard motor detailed in the same draft order.

[9]I am also satisfied that it is appropriate that orders for sale be made.

[10]              Accordingly, I direct that, in terms of the draft order filed on 3 September 2019, the three motor vehicles and the outboard motor detailed in [4] of that draft order, are to be sold in accordance with the other provisions of that draft order.

Churchman J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Wellington for Applicant

Details
AGLC
Commissioner, New Zealand Police v Blance [2019] NZHC 2225
Case
[2019] NZHC 2225
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand was asked to consider an application by the Commissioner, New Zealand Police, for restraining and effective control orders in relation to various motor vehicles, a speed boat, and outboard motors. These items were registered in the names of, or under the control of, various people who were listed as interested parties in the proceedings. The application sought orders for the sale of some of these items. This was a case under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009.

The court needed to decide whether the application for sale orders in respect of certain motor vehicles and an outboard motor should be granted, given that there had been no opposition to the application. The Commissioner had already filed a chronology and detailed submissions, along with a draft order. The court needed to determine whether it was appropriate to proceed with the sale of these items in accordance with the draft order.

The court found that there was no opposition to the orders sought in respect of the three motor vehicles and the outboard motor detailed in the draft order. The court also found that it was appropriate for orders for sale to be made. Accordingly, the court directed that the three motor vehicles and the outboard motor detailed in the draft order should be sold in accordance with the other provisions of that draft order.

The court's final order was that the three motor vehicles and the outboard motor detailed in the draft order should be sold in accordance with the draft order.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.