Commissioner of Police v Lawson

[2025] NZHC 1693

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA AHURIRI ROHE

CIV-2021-441-69

[2025] NZHC 1693

IN THE MATTER

of an application pursuant to the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009

BETWEEN

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Applicant

AND

KEITH RONALD LAWSON

Respondent

Hearing:	On the Papers
Counsel:	M J M Mitchell for Applicant S Jefferson for Respondent
Judgment:	25 June 2025

JUDGMENT OF McQUEEN J

[1]                 The Commissioner of Police (the Commissioner) applies under s 59(1)(b) of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 to have a supplementary order added to the profit forfeiture order which was made on 5 December 2024 in respect of a property owned by Mr Lawson.1

[2]                 The profit forfeiture order was made on the grounds that Mr Lawson unlawfully benefitted to the value of $638,814.58 from significant criminal activity, namely the sale of methamphetamine, and that he owned the property. The maximum recoverable amount is $638,814.58 and the property to be realised is that owned by Mr Lawson.

1      Commissioner of Police v Lawson [2024] NZHC 3681 at [62]–[63].

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v LAWSON [2025] NZHC 1693 [25 June 2025]

[3]                 On 8 May 2025, the Commissioner advised the Court that the Official Assignee sought an amendment to the order to authorise the Official Assignee to execute documents in the name of Mr Lawson and to do anything necessary to give validity and operation to the deed or instrument. The Commissioner indicated that the utility of such an amendment was unclear given the statutory powers of the Official Assignee and the explicit identification of the property to be realised in the profit forfeiture order.

[4]                 At the Court’s direction, the Official Assignee filed a memorandum explaining why the supplementary order was necessary. The Official Assignee says that it may not be able to dispose of the property given the terms of the profit forfeiture order do not empower the Official Assignee to execute documents necessary to effect the realisation of the property. The supplementary order is therefore necessary and convenient to give effect to the profit forfeiture order. The Official Assignee referred to caselaw where similar orders were made.2

[5]                 Mr Lawson has indicated he has no view on the proposed amendment to the order.

[6]                 The supplementary order is merely ancillary to the profit forfeiture order in the sense that it enables the Official Assignee to give effect to the profit forfeiture order. It is essentially a mechanical addition to the profit forfeiture order.3 It facilitates the Official Assignee’s ability to dispose of the property as  is  required  under  the  profit forfeiture order. I am therefore satisfied it is appropriate to make the supplementary order.

[7]                 Accordingly, I make  the  following  order,  which  is  additional  to  the  profit forfeiture order made on 5 December 2024:4

(a)For the purpose  of  effecting  a  sale  under  these  orders,  the Official Assignee (including a person delegated their functions and

2      Commissioner of Police v Rowland [2020] NZHC 791 at [5(b)] citing Official Assignee v Mihaka

[2017] NZHC 2632 at [4].

3      Above n 2.

4      Commissioner of Police v Lawson, above n 1, at [63].

powers under the Act) has the power to execute any deed or instrument in the name of Keith Ronald Lawson, and to do anything necessary to give validity and operation to the deed or instrument.

McQueen J

Solicitors:

Elvidge & Partners, Napier for Applicant