Commissioner of Police v Rangi [2014] NZHC 2973 (26 November 2014)

Last Updated: 8 December 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2014-404-002594 [2014] NZHC 2973

UNDER	the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009
BETWEEN	COMMISSIONER OF POLICE Applicant
AND	TAI RANGI Respondent

Hearing:	26 November 2014
Appearances:	M R Harborow for Applicant
Judgment:	26 November 2014

_{ORAL JUDGMENT OF VENNING J}

_{Solicitors: Meredith Connell, Auckland}

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v RANGI [2014] NZHC 2973 [26 November 2014]

[1] The Commissioner of Police applies for restraining, ancillary and civil forfeiture orders against the respondent Mr Tai Rangi.

[2] The application was first before the Court on 20 October 2014. At that time Duffy J directed the matter proceed to a formal proof hearing. The matter has been relisted before the Court this morning to deal with the issue of restraint. After hearing from counsel, however, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to proceed with and deal with the formal proof hearing this morning as well.

Background

[3] On 23 May 2014 a car driven by Mr Rangi was stopped at a routine checkpoint in Manukau. On smelling cannabis the police officers invoked search powers under the Search and Surveillance Act 2012. They located $1,970 cash on Mr Rangi’s person. A further search of the car disclosed:

(a) a packet of small clear bags,

(b) a clear bag containing a large number of pink tablets believed to contain ecstasy,

(c) a cut straw in the glove box; and

(d) a kitchen scale behind the front passenger seat.

[4] There were in total 304 whole tablets and two half tablets. In a Louis Vuitton satchel bag behind the driver’s seat a further plastic bag containing a large amount of pink granules believed to be Contac NT, containing the class B controlled drug pseudoephedrine was found together with significantly for present purposes a plastic bag containing $64,980 cash. The pink granules believed to be Contac NT weighed at 678 grams.

[5] When spoken to by the police Mr Rangi claimed that any items found in the car were his property, including the tablets and bundles of cash but refused to give any further explanation. Mr Rangi was subsequently charged with two counts of

possession for supply of a class B controlled drug, namely pseudoephedrine and MDMA. He pleaded guilty to those charges and is currently serving a term of imprisonment.

[6] Mr Rangi gave no explanation for the substantial sums of money found in the car and on his person. When asked if he had worked in the five months prior to his arrest he replied he “didn’t think so”.

[7] Investigations into Mr Rangi’s financial position disclose that his sole income has been from ACC compensation payments since 31 March 2014. His average income for the period from 31 March 2012 to 31 March 2014 was just in excess of

$36,000 per annum.

[8] By reference to a National Drug Intelligence Bureau report the evidence of Detective Constable Li is that the value of the Contac NT is approximately $33,990 and the value of the ecstasy tablets also found at $10,675.

[9] On that basis the value of the cash seized is the face value of $66,950.20 and the value of drugs seized $44,665. In the absence of any other explanation for the cash received I draw an inference from the circumstances in which it was found and the lack of any other significant income earned by Mr Rangi that the cash was received from drug offending.

[10] It follows that the Court is satisfied that Mr Rangi had effective control over the property and that on the balance of probabilities he has, namely within the last year or so and certainly within seven years, unlawfully benefited to the value of

$111,615.20. The property seized by the police, including the cash, is tainted property obtained from significant criminal activity.

[11] It follows I am satisfied that the orders sought are justified. I also note Mr Rangi’s advice to the police officer when served at the prison with these papers that he did not dispute the application but even without that the evidence satisfies the Court it is appropriate the orders should be made.

[12] I therefore make orders in accordance with paragraph 1(a) and (b) of the application before the Court.

[13] It follows that the fixture allocated for 5 February 2015 may be vacated.

[14] Costs to the applicant on a 2B basis, together with disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.

Venning J