Drake v Commissioner of Police

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI

SC 97/2020
[2021] NZSC 13

BETWEEN	LETICIA MARGARET DRAKE First Applicant
GAVIN JOHN STEWART Second Applicant
AND	COMMISSIONER OF POLICE Respondent

Court:	William Young, Glazebrook and Ellen France JJ
Counsel:	M Starling and N R Wham for Applicants K South and C C White for Respondent
Judgment:	1 March 2021

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Introduction

Asset forfeiture orders were made under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 against the applicants, Ms Drake and Mr Stewart, in relation to benefit fraud and tax evasion respectively.[1] The applicants seek leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal decision dismissing their appeal against those orders and the refusal of their application for relief.[2]

Our analysis

[1]The Commissioner of the New Zealand Police v Drake [2017] NZHC 2919 (Dunningham J).

[2]Drake v Commissioner of the New Zealand Police [2020] NZCA 494 (French, Brown and Clifford JJ).

The applications largely concern factual matters relevant to the particular circumstances of the applicants. Nothing raised by the applicants suggests the courts below erred in their analysis. To the extent that the grounds of the proposed appeal relate to legal questions, there is insufficient prospect of success to justify granting leave. The criteria for leave are not met.[3]

Result

[3]Senior Courts Act 2016, s 74(2).

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

Solicitors:
Raymond Donnelly & Co, Christchurch for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand heard an application by Leticia Margaret Drake and Gavin John Stewart against the Commissioner of Police. The applicants sought leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal's dismissal of their appeal against asset forfeiture orders made under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009, as well as the refusal of their application for relief. These orders were issued in relation to benefit fraud and tax evasion. The Court of Appeal had previously dismissed the applicants' appeal, and the applicants now sought to challenge that decision in the Supreme Court.

The central legal issues before the Supreme Court were whether the lower courts had erred in their analysis of the factual matters relevant to the applicants' circumstances and whether there was a sufficient prospect of success in the proposed appeal on the legal questions raised. The Court found that the applicants had not demonstrated that the lower courts had erred in their analysis of the facts, nor had they shown that there was a sufficient prospect of success on the legal questions to warrant granting leave to appeal.

The Supreme Court held that the criteria for leave to appeal were not met, and accordingly dismissed the application for leave to appeal. The Court noted that the applications largely concerned factual matters relevant to the particular circumstances of the applicants, and nothing raised by the applicants suggested that the courts below had erred in their analysis. To the extent that the grounds of the proposed appeal related to legal questions, there was insufficient prospect of success to justify granting leave.

The final orders of the Court were that the application for leave to appeal was dismissed. The Supreme Court did not grant the applicants permission to appeal against the Court of Appeal's decision, effectively concluding the legal proceedings between the parties.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established