Commissioner of Police v Bird

[2025] NZHC 2588

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA NGĀMOTU ROHE

CIV-2020-443-12

[2025] NZHC 2588

UNDER

the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009

IN THE MATTER

of an application under s 95 of the said Act

BETWEEN

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Applicant

AND

MARLON JON BIRD

Respondent

Hearing:	On the papers
Counsel:	J E Bourke for Applicant M Ryan for Respondent
Judgment:	8 September 2025

JUDGMENT OF McHERRON J

[Approval of settlement]

[1]        The Commissioner of Police applies, under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Act) for a type 1 asset forfeiture order in respect of the following property:

(a)a 2014 Ford Ranger (including ignition keys) registered in the name of the respondent;

(b)$56,798.70 cash and accrued interest;

(c)all interests in a residential property in New Plymouth, including all appliances, building materials on site, fitting and fixtures already installed and awaiting installation registered in the name of the respondent;

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v BIRD [2025] NZHC 2588 [8 September 2025]

(d)$45,793.80 cash and accrued interest located on 24 April 2021 at that address;

(e)the contents and any accrued interests in all Westpac bank accounts in the control of the respondent held with the Official Assignee.

[2]        The respondent was arrested and charged with serious drug-related offences including the manufacture of methamphetamine and the possession of methamphetamine for supply in relation to two investigations. On 16 November 2022, the respondent was sentenced to five years, three months’ imprisonment following the entry of guilty pleas. The joint settlement memorandum records that:

(a)The purchase of the Ford Ranger was completed using a combination of legitimate funds and cash from drug dealing profits. The Ford Ranger has been in part acquired from the profits of significant criminal activity and is therefore tainted property.

(b)Tainted sale proceeds from another property were used to acquire the New Plymouth property which was acquired, indirectly, as a result of the profits of significant criminal activity and is therefore tainted property.

(c)The cash seized and funds held in the Westpac bank accounts do not match with any declared income. These funds were acquired as a result of significant criminal activity and are therefore tainted property.

[3]        Discussions have taken place between counsel for the Commissioner and the respondent. A settlement has been agreed in which, from the proceeds of the forfeited property, $30,000 will be paid to a nominated bank account of the respondent. The respondent has agreed to provide the Commissioner or the Official Assignee details of his nominated bank account in the form of a deposit slip, bank statement or similar.

[4]        The application has been referred to me for approval because s 95 of the Act requires the Court to approve any settlement into which the Commissioner may wish to enter. Section 95(3) provides that the Court must approve the settlement if it is satisfied that it is consistent with the purposes of the Act and the overall interests of justice.

[5]        The parties put forward the following factors to justify their application for approval of the settlement:

(a)the settlement reflects the purpose of the Act that tainted property is to be forfeited.

(b)the $30,000 to be returned to the respondent is modest compared to the value of the property that is to be forfeited.

(c)the $30,000 to be returned to the respondent reflects the financial benefit to the Commissioner of saving time, cost and resources, in not having to prove the taint at a hearing.

(d)the settlement provides finality and certainty, which is in the public interest.

[6]        I consider the settlement is consistent with the purposes of the Act. The pragmatic consideration allowing the respondent to retain $30,000 does not change that conclusion. Overall, the interests of justice are enhanced because the settlement achieves certainty as to outcome, for far less cost than would otherwise have been incurred.1

[7]        Accordingly, I make an order approving the settlement. I direct that the property described above at [1] (and in more detail in the settlement agreement) is forfeited to the Crown as a type 1 asset forfeiture. The amount forfeited to the Crown is to be paid to the Official Assignee and thereafter be under the Official Assignee’s control in terms of the Act. The sum of $30,000 is to be paid to the respondent.

1      Commissioner of Police v Moutray [2012] NZHC 2940 at [6].

[8]There is no order as to costs.

McHerron J

Solicitors:

C&M Legal, New Plymouth for Applicant