Commissioner of Police v Linton [2025] NZHC 1765 (30 June 2025)

Commissioner of Police v Linton [2025] NZHC 1765 (30 June 2025) Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback High Court of New Zealand Decisions You are here: NZLII >> Databases >> High Court of New Zealand Decisions >> 2025 >> [2025] NZHC 1765 Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Download | Help Commissioner of Police v Linton [2025] NZHC 1765 (30 June 2025) Last Updated: 30 July 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE CIV-2024-409-00061[2025] NZHC 1765 UNDER the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 IN THE MATTER of an application pursuant to ss 21, 24 and 25 of the Act BETWEEN COMMISSIONER OF POLICE Applicant AND MATTHEW JOHN LINTON First Respondent AND CALEB ANTHONY PASIONE CAFFERY Second Respondent AND ANDREW MICHAEL SMITH Third Respondent AND DANIEL JAY BURGESS Fourth Respondent AND HAMISH LAWS First Interested Party AND AMBER BAKER Second Interested Party Hearing: On the papers Appearances: K South for Applicant First, Third and Fourth Respondents unrepresented D J Matthews for Second Respondent Judgment: 30 June 2025 JUDGMENT OF EATON J COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v LINTON [2025] NZHC 1765 [30 June 2025] [1] On 15 April 2024, Tahana J granted an on-notice restraining order in relation to various cash sums associated with the respondents.1 [2] The Commissioner has now filed an application for further orders associated with the restraining order. The application is administrative in nature and seeks to correct accounting errors in the sums of cash seized from the respondents and the subject of the restraining order. [3] The respondents, the interested parties and the Official Assignee (OA) have been served.2 An affidavit of service has been filed. No steps in opposition have been taken by or on behalf of the respondents. The supporting affidavit of Christopher Roberts explains that he has recently researched the sums recorded in respect of the individual cash exhibits, some of which involved quantities of coin. That review has identified discrepancies in the cash amounts set out in the restraining order. He also identified a clerical error in relation to property attributed to the fourth respondent. [4] I am satisfied it is appropriate to make an order in terms of application. I vary the restraining order accordingly to read as follows: (a) $36,242.30 (found as $368.20, $10,000, $25,020 and $854.10) when a search warrant was executed at 148 Baker Street, New Brighton, Christchurch, and a BMW vehicle registration number PNS507 on 13 October 2023. (b) $5,900 cash located in the possession of Andrew Smith during his arrest on 17 October 2023, on Pegasus Boulevard, Pegasus, Waimakariri. (c) $15,450 cash seized from Hamish Laws (first interested party) on 17 October 2023, who had removed the cash from Andrew Smith’s residence of 14 Waimarie Street, Pegasus, Waimakariri. 1 Commissioner of Police v Linton HC Christchurch CIV-2024-409-61, 15 April 2024. 2 The proceedings have been resolved against the second respondent. (d) $22,435 (found as $20,865 and $1,570) located during the execution of a search warrant on 8 November 2022 at Mr Burgess’ home address of 44 Teesdale Street, Burnside, and in a Ford Ranger vehicle, registration NYR740, belonging to Mr Burgess. ................................................... Eaton J Solicitors: Crown Solicitors, Christchurch Counsel: D J Matthews, Barrister, Copy to: Official Assignee M J Linton A M Smith D J Burgess H Laws NZLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback URL: http://www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZHC/2025/1765.html