Commissioner of Police v Webb

[2023] NZHC 227

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2022-404-2208

[2023] NZHC 227

UNDER

Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009

BETWEEN

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Applicant

AND

BRUCE RALPH WEBB

Respondent

Hearing:	On the papers
Appearances:	S Earl / J Lowyim for Commissioner K Hogan for Respondent
Judgment:	17 February 2023

JUDGMENT OF LANG J

[on application for approval of settlement]

This judgment was delivered by me on 17 February 2023 at 3 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date……………

Solicitors:
Meredith Connell, Auckland

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v WEBB [2023] NZHC 227 [17 February 2023]

[1]    In this proceeding the Commissioner of Police (the Commissioner) seeks civil forfeiture orders against Mr Webb under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (the Act). The parties now seek the Court’s approval under s 95 of the Act to a settlement of the litigation.

Background

[2]    On 6 February 2022 the police went to execute a search warrant at Mr Webb’s home address. As they approached the address, they saw a backpack being thrown from the address onto a neighbouring property. The police searched the backpack and found the sum of $88,145 in cash, together with 117 grams of methamphetamine, a “tick” list, digital scales, small plastic bags and a wallet belonging to Mr Webb. The police then searched Mr Webb’s address and found a Samsung cellphone belonging to Mr Webb. Data extracted from the cellphone included text messages relating to the sale of methamphetamine.

[3]    Mr Webb pleaded guilty to charges of being in possession of methamphetamine for supply and supplying methamphetamine. These charges are currently before the Alcohol and Other Drug Treatment Court.

[4]    A financial investigation revealed that Mr Webb had declared an average of approximately $15,700 per annum by way of income over the seven previous years. Over the same period a total sum of approximately $126,000 had been deposited into his bank accounts in both cash and other unexplained deposits. Apart from the sum of

$8,154.021 there were no significant withdrawals on or near the date the cash was found that would explain the origins of the cash.

[5]    The Commissioner considers the cash represents the proceeds of the supply of illicit drugs by Mr Webb. Mr Webb has a previous conviction in 2015 for offering to supply methamphetamine.

1 Referred to below at [6].

The proposed settlement

[6]    The Commissioner and Mr Webb have agreed to settle the litigation on the basis that the sum of $8,154.02 is to be released and returned to Mr Webb. Mr Webb has established to the satisfaction of the Commissioner that he received this sum by way of an inheritance from a family member. An assets forfeiture order under s 50 of the Act is to be made by consent over the remainder of the cash.

Decision

[7]    I am satisfied the proposed settlement recognises the primary purpose of the Act, which is to provide for forfeiture of property derived directly or indirectly from significant criminal activity, or property representing the value of a person’s unlawfully derived income.

[8]    The proposed settlement removes from Mr Webb’s possession and ownership all the cash found in the bag other than that which can be traced back to the inheritance. I am satisfied that the cash was in all likelihood derived from previous drug-related transactions. The proposed settlement also allows the parties to have certainty and control as to the outcome of the litigation.

[9]    I therefore approve the proposed settlement and make an assets forfeiture order by consent under s 50(1) of the Act in relation to the sum of $79,990.98. The balance of the cash seized by the police will not be subject of a forfeiture order and is to be returned to Mr Webb.

[10]   I record that the orders now made by consent are in full and final settlement of the proceeding. The proceeding is accordingly at an end.

Lang J