NZLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

High Court of New Zealand Decisions

You are here:  NZLII >> Databases >> High Court of New Zealand Decisions >> 2016 >> [2016] NZHC 2030

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Download | Help

Commissioner of Police v Norton [2016] NZHC 2030 (30 August 2016)

Last Updated: 20 October 2016


IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY



CIV-2014-404-1823 [2016] NZHC 2030

UNDER
the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act
2009
BETWEEN
THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE Applicant
AND
CATHERINE NORTON Respondent



On the papers
Counsel:
M Harborow and H Clark for the Applicant
M Pecotic for the Respondent
E Lawrie for the Interested Parties
Judgment:
30 August 2016




JUDGMENT OF THOMAS J

This judgment was delivered by me on 30 August 2016 at 4.10 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.


Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date:...............................








Solicitors/Counsel:

Meredith Connell, Auckland. M Pecotic, Auckland.









THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v NORTON [2016] NZHC 2330 [30 August 2016]

[1] In 2014, Counties Manukau Police initiated an investigation into the suspected sale and distribution of the class A controlled drug, methamphetamine. As a result of the investigation the respondent, Catherine Norton, was identified as a supplier of a significant quantity of methamphetamine.

[2] A search warrant was executed at Ms Norton’s home address as a result of which certain items including cash were seized. The Police then conducted further enquiries in respect of assets held by or under the control of Ms Norton.

[3] As a result, in 2014, restraining orders were made in respect of cash, funds in two bank accounts in the name of Ms Norton’s two children, a motor vehicle, and a property at 8B Domain Street, Waiuku.

[4] The restraining orders have been extended by consent since that time. The Commissioner then made an application for civil forfeiture orders. This was opposed by Ms Norton.

[5] In December 2015, Ms Norton pleaded guilty to one representative charge of supplying methamphetamine and one charge of possessing methamphetamine for sale. She was sentenced to eight years and six months’ imprisonment.

[6] The Commissioner, Ms Norton, and interested parties, being Ms Norton’s two children and mother, have now agreed to settle the matter of civil forfeiture subject to the Court’s approval under s 95 of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act

2009 (the Act).


Analysis

[7] Section 95 of the Act provides:

95 High Court must approve settlement between Commissioner and other party

(1) The Commissioner may enter into a settlement with any person as to the property or any sum of money to be forfeited to the Crown.

(2) A settlement does not bind the parties unless the High Court approves it.

(3) The High Court must approve the settlement if it is satisfied that it is consistent with—

(a) the purposes of this Act; and

(b) the overall interests of justice.

[8] The purpose of the Act is set out in s 3 as follows:

3 Purpose

(1) The primary purpose of this Act is to establish a regime for the forfeiture of property—

(a) that has been derived directly or indirectly from significant criminal activity; or

(b) that represents the value of a person’s unlawfully derived

income.

(2) The criminal proceeds and instruments forfeiture regime established under this Act proposes to—

(a) eliminate the chance for persons to profit from undertaking or being associated with significant criminal activity; and

(b) deter significant criminal activity; and

(c) reduce the ability of criminals and persons associated with crime or significant criminal activity to continue or expand criminal enterprise; and

(d) deal with matters associated with foreign restraining orders and foreign forfeiture orders that arise in New Zealand.

[9] The proposed settlement does not involve the return of any restrained assets to Ms Norton. It entails the forfeiture of approximately $215,000 to the Crown representing property derived from crime as well as the value of Ms Norton’s unlawfully derived income. There are relatively small amounts of money to be returned to Ms Norton’s mother and one of her daughters who is still a minor.

[10] The Commissioner submits that the proposed settlement is a pragmatic one particularly given Ms Norton does not own any other assets and is serving a significant term of imprisonment.

[11] I am satisfied having considered the matter that the proposed settlement is consistent with the purposes of the Act and the overall interests of justice.

Result

[12] For these reasons, the settlement is approved pursuant to s 95 of the Act. The orders sought as set out in the joint memorandum of counsel dated 18 August 2016

are made to give effect to the settlement.






Thomas J


NZLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZHC/2016/2030.html