IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE	
CIV-2019-485-258
[2021] NZHC 41	

UNDER	the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009	
IN THE MATTER	of an application under sections 21, 25, 33
and 38	
BETWEEN	COMMISSIONER OF NEW ZEALAND POLICE
Applicant	
AND	TEREVA TROY DAVID AKAVI
Respondent

DAVID MATAMAKI AKAVI
First Interested Party

JOSHUA ALAN VEKULA
Second Interested Party	

Hearing:	1 February 2021	
Counsel:	V M Rea for Applicant
No appearance for Respondent
No appearance for First Interested Party E A Hall for Second Interested Party	
Judgment:	1 February 2021	

ORAL JUDGMENT OF CHURCHMAN J

[1]	Two documents have been filed in the Court this morning. The first is an On- Notice Application for Further Order Associated with a Restraining Order, the application being pursuant to s 33 of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (the Act).

COMMISSIONER OF NEW ZEALAND POLICE v AKAVI [2021] NZHC 41 [1 February 2021]

[2]	That document indicates that the Commissioner of Police seeks the release of cash in the sum of $1,000 being part of the property specified at [2.4] of the applicant’s On-Notice Application for Restraining Orders (Prior to Civil Forfeiture Order) dated 16 May 2019.

[3]	The grounds upon which the order is sought is that the first interested party has not opposed or taken any steps but the second interested party, Joshua Vekula, has filed a notice of opposition dated 8 July 2019.

[4]	The second interested party by way of the joint memorandum of counsel withdraws his opposition to the On-Notice Application, and beyond the $1,000, claims no further interest in any of the restrained property. There is no issue as to costs as between parties.

[5]	Turning now to the joint memorandum of counsel. The contents of that document and the brief submissions of counsel this morning, indicate that a settlement has been reached between the parties. The memorandum confirms that from the applicant’s perspective, the settlement is a pragmatic one.

[6]	There is reference to a decision of Muir J in Commissioner of Police v Wellington1 where he noted that a settlement which must be approved by the High Court under s 95 of the Act is a matter requiring a consideration in the interests of justice being a broad inquiry, taking into account the savings of time and costs, and the litigation risks to the parties. That decision notes that a decision to settle proceedings under the Act can be made on economic and pragmatic grounds, and often reflects a common-sense compromise between the parties. I am invited to conclude that such a pragmatic basis exists in the present case.

[7]	Having reviewed the documents on the file, the memorandum and the brief submissions of counsel, I am satisfied that this is an appropriate case to approve the settlement that is set out in [4]-[7] of the joint memorandum of counsel, and I do so.

1	Commissioner of Police v Wellington [2018] NZHC 2502 at [14]-[15].

[8]	The defended hearing set down for 21 February 2021 in relation to the contested forfeiture order is vacated as a result of this settlement.

[9]	The interim restraining order that was extended until today’s date is extended for a further 12 months from today.

Churchman J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Wellington for Applicant

Counsel:
E A Hall, Wellington for Second Interested Party