Police went too far in seeking court approval to pre-emptively seize vehicles from Auckland pensioner Brian Hansen without prior notice after Mr Hansen had previously been found not guilty of benefit fraud, the High Court ruled.
Police must first give notice of its court application, giving Mr Hansen a chance to respond, Justice Powell ruled.
Sweeping powers in Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act allow seizure of assets without any formal warning or prior notice where criminal activity is suspected and there is a risk that these assets might be disposed of or destroyed.
Seizure is a preliminary step; a later hearing determines whether confiscation is justified.
Such pre-emptive strikes require prior court approval.
Justice Powell was dismissive of police evidence that Mr Hansen was not to be trusted, likely to hide his Tesla, Mercedes Benz, Jaguar XJ, caravan and boat if given prior notice of plans to seize them.
The court was told Mr Hansen was found not guilty of benefit fraud in March 2025.
He is a 77 year old pensioner, living in Housing New Zealand property, where he cares for his adult intellectually disabled daughter.
The earlier unsuccessful prosecution followed allegations he fraudulently obtained benefits through a company he controlled, having this company claim payment for services caring for his daughter. It was alleged this arrangement was a fraud, designed to circumvent a prohibition on parents claiming benefits for the cost of caring for their disabled children.
Criminal proceeds legislation allows seizure of assets obtained through criminal activity, even if no conviction follows.
Police suspect that the number of high value vehicles Mr Hansen owns must have been funded from illegal activities.
The power to pre-emptively seize assets must be carefully managed, Justice Powell ruled. There is a risk of arbitrary and unfair action by the state.
There was no evidence of any risk that Mr Hansen would destroy or conceal the vehicles if notice of police application was served on him before a court hearing deciding whether seizure is necessary, he said.
Proceeding without prior notice in such circumstances would mean any citizen’s moveable property could be seized by the state without notice at any time, he ruled.
Commissioner of Police v. Hansen – High Court (8.07.25)
25.155