JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
CITATION: BETTSON -v- THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA [2018] WASC 396
CORAM: ACTING JUSTICE STRK
HEARD: 17 DECEMBER 2018
DELIVERED : 17 DECEMBER 2018
PUBLISHED : 17 DECEMBER 2018
FILE NO/S: CPCA 19 of 2017
BETWEEN: LEON LASCELLES BETTSON
First Plaintiff
NUR SETYANINGTYAS
Second Plaintiff
SECURE FUNDING PTY LTD
Third Plaintiff
AND
THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Defendant
Catchwords:
Criminal Property Confiscation - Turns on own facts
Legislation:
Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 (WA)
Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA)
Result:
Confiscation order made
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
| First Plaintiff | : | No appearance |
| Second Plaintiff | : | No appearance |
| Third Plaintiff | : | No appearance |
| Defendant | : | T Staples |
Solicitors:
| First Plaintiff | : | Chelmsford Legal |
| Second Plaintiff | : | Chelmsford Legal |
| Third Plaintiff | : | Norton Rose Fulbright |
| Defendant | : | The Director of Public Prosecutions for the State of Western Australia |
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
ACTING JUSTICE STRK:
This is a matter arising under the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 (WA) (CPCA).
Three plaintiffs are named in the proceeding. The objections pressed by each of the plaintiffs have now been resolved.
By an order made by consent on 10 May 2018, the first plaintiff's objection was dismissed. By an order made by consent on 19 November 2018, the third plaintiff's objection was dismissed.
By an application made by summons filed on 22 November 2018, the Director of Public Prosecutions pressed for orders in the terms set out at sch A to these reasons. The first order sought the dismissal of the second plaintiff's objection to the confiscation of frozen property made by originating summons dated 10 May 2017.
On 10 December 2018, orders were made by consent in the following terms:
1.The Second Plaintiff's Notice of Objection to Freezing Notice WAPFN170031 is upheld to the extent of $12,500 from the ING Direct Bank Account number 11303694 in the name of Leon Bettson with any interest thereon.
2.Freezing Notice WAPFN170031 is set aside on all grounds in relation to the sum of $12,500 referred to in paragraph 1 together with any interest thereon.
3.The Second Plaintiff's objection is otherwise dismissed.
4.There is no order as to costs.
At the hearing of the application, the Director of Public Prosecutions pressed for orders in terms of a minute of amended proposed orders filed on 13 December 2018. The terms of those orders are set out at sch B to these reasons.
The Director of Public Prosecutions applies for a declaration under s 30 of the CPCA that the property specified in paragraph 2 of the application has been confiscated to the State of Western Australia under s 8(1) of the CPCA upon the first plaintiff being declared to be a drug trafficker pursuant to s 32A(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA) on 13 October 2017 as a result of being convicted of a confiscation offence committed after the commencement of the CPCA.
Three affidavits were filed in support of the summons: the affidavit of Morgan Charlotte Paling filed 22 November 2018; the affidavit of Laurie Askew filed 28 November 2018; and the affidavit of Eleanor McKirdy filed 29 November 2018. The applicant also relied upon the outline of written submissions filed on 22 November 2018.
For the reasons set out below, I am prepared to make orders in the terms proposed on behalf of the applicant as set out in sch B.
Legal framework
Section 30 of the CPCA provides:
30. Declarations of confiscation, applying for and making
(1)The DPP or the CCC may apply to the court for a declaration that property has been confiscated.
(2)On considering an application, if the court finds that the property described in the application has been confiscated under section 6, 7 or 8, the court must make a declaration to that effect.
Section 8(1) of the CPCA provides:
8. Declared drug trafficker, certain property of confiscated
(1)When a person is declared to be a drug trafficker under section 32A(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 as a result of being convicted of a confiscation offence that was committed after the commencement of this Act, the following property is confiscated ‑
(a)all the property that the person owns or effectively controls at the time the declaration is made;
(b)all property that the person gave away at any time before the declaration was made, whether the gift was made before or after the commencement of this Act.
Section 10(1) of the CPCA provides:
10. Other property, time and effect of confiscation of under s. 6, 7 or 8
(1)Property (except registrable real property) that is confiscated under section 6, 7 or 8 vests absolutely in the State when the section takes effect in relation to the property.
Under s 9 of the CPCA, registrable real property does not vest absolutely in the State unless and until the court makes a declaration under s 30 that the property has been confiscated.
In this proceeding, the Director of Public Prosecutions has to prove the following under s 8(1) of the CPCA:
1.The first plaintiff had been declared to be a drug trafficker pursuant to s 32A(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act.
2.The declaration was as a result of 'confiscation offence'. The term 'confiscation offence' is defined in s 141(1) of the CPCA. It includes an offence against a law in force anywhere in Australia that is punishable by imprisonment for two years or more.
3.The offence was committed after the commencement of the CPCA, that is, after 1 January 2001.
4.The subject property was owned or effectively controlled by the first plaintiff. (The Glossary to the CPCA defines the term 'owner' to mean, in relation to property, a person who has a legal or equitable interest in the property).
5.The subject property was so owned or effectively controlled at the time the drug trafficker declaration was made.
If the above are proved, then by operation of s 8(1) of the CPCA, the subject property was confiscated at the time the drug trafficker declaration was made, and, by s 10(1) of the CPCA, the property (except registrable real property) vested absolutely in the State at that time. Further, given the mandatory terms of s 30 of the CPCA, the court will be compelled to make a confiscation declaration confirming that the property had been so confiscated under s 8(1).
In short, if the legislative requirements are satisfied, the court is required to make a declaration that the property has been confiscated.[1]
[1] Ranford v The State of Western Australia [2015] WASC 45 [9].
Determination
In all of the circumstances, I am satisfied that the Director of Public Prosecutions has established, on the balance of probabilities, the five matters identified at par 14 above.
The first plaintiff was convicted under s 6(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act of one count of possessing a prohibited drug, namely cannabis, with the intent to sell or supply it to another, committed on 17 March 2017. He was also convicted under s 7(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act of one count of cultivating a prohibited drug, namely cannabis, with the intent to sell or supply it to another, committed on 17 March 2017. He was declared to be a drug trafficker under s 32(a)(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act on 13 October 2017 in relation to those convictions.[2]
[2] Affidavit of Morgan Charlotte Paling filed 22 November 2018 par 11 'MCP17' and 'MCP18'.
The declaration was as a result of the convictions under s 6(1)(a) and s 7(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act. The offences are punishable by a term of imprisonment of more than two years,[3] and is therefore a 'confiscation offence'.
[3] Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA) s 34(2).
The offence was committed after the commencement of the CPCA.
As to the last two conditions, I find as follows.
In relation to the land at Lot 687 on Plan 15752 in Certificate of Title Volume 1759 Folio 211, commonly known as 22 Baltusrol Rise, Connolly, the first defendant is the registered proprietor.[4]
[4] Affidavit of Morgan Charlotte Paling filed 22 November 2018 'MCP19'.
In relation to the land at Lot 2 on Strata Plan 18601 in the Certificate of Title Volume 1862 Folio 448, commonly known as Unit 2/51 Buckingham Drive, Wangara, the first plaintiff is the registered proprietor.[5]
[5] Affidavit of Morgan Charlotte Paling filed 22 November 2018 'MCP20'.
In relation to the moneys standing to the credit of Commonwealth Bank of Australia account numbered 616610840889, on the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that the moneys are owned or effectively controlled by the first plaintiff.
First, a business transaction account statement of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia for the period 31 March 2017 to 30 June 2017 discloses that account number 616610840889 is held in the name of the first plaintiff trading as 383mx earthmoving.[6]
[6] Affidavit of Morgan Charlotte Paling filed 22 November 2018 'MCP24'.
Secondly, a search of the business name database maintained by the Australian Securities & Investments Commission reveals that the first plaintiff is the business name holder of 383mx earthmoving.[7]
[7] Affidavit of Morgan Charlotte Paling filed 22 November 2018 'MCP21'.
Thirdly, a search of the 'ABN Lookup' database maintained by the Australian Securities & Investments Commission reveals that the first defendant has an ABN (being ABN 41 374 275 208); and the ABN was for an individual / sole trader, with business name '383mx earthmoving'.
In relation to the moneys standing to the credit of Commonwealth Bank of Australia account number 616610840897, on the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that the moneys are owned or effectively controlled by the first plaintiff.
First, a business transaction account statement of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia for the period 31 December 2016 to 30 March 2017 discloses that account number 616610840897 is held in the name of the first plaintiff trading as Marque marine fish.[8]
[8] Affidavit of Morgan Charlotte Paling filed 22 November 2018 'MCP25'.
Secondly, a search of the business name database maintained by the Australian Securities & Investments Commission reveals that the first plaintiff is the business name holder of Marque marine fish.[9]
[9] Affidavit of Morgan Charlotte Paling filed 22 November 2018 'MCP22'.
Thirdly, a search of the 'ABN Lookup' database maintained by the Australian Securities & Investments Commission reveals that the first defendant has an ABN (being ABN 41 374 275 208); and the ABN was for an individual / sole trader, also with business name 'Marque marine fish'.
In relation to the moneys standing to the credit of Commonwealth Bank of Australia account number 600010168463, on the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that the moneys are owned or effectively controlled by the first plaintiff as a business transaction account statement of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia for the period 14 February 2017 to 13 May 2017 discloses that account number 600010168463 is held in the name of the first plaintiff.[10]
[10] Affidavit of Morgan Charlotte Paling filed 22 November 2018 'MCP26'.
In relation to the moneys standing to the credit of Commonwealth Bank of Australia account numbered 716710997857, on the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that the moneys are owned or effectively controlled by the first plaintiff as a business transaction account statement of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia for the period 12 March 2017 to 11 April 2017 discloses that account number 716710997857 is held in the name of the first plaintiff.[11]
[11] Affidavit of Morgan Charlotte Paling filed 22 November 2018 'MCP27'.
In relation to the moneys standing to the credit of ING Direct Bank account numbered 11303694, on the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that the moneys are owned or effectively controlled by the first plaintiff as a Saving Maximiser account statement of ING Direct Bank for the period 1 January 2017 to 30 June 2017 discloses that account number 11303694 is held in the name of the first plaintiff.[12]
[12] Affidavit of Morgan Charlotte Paling filed 22 November 2018 'MCP28'.
For these reasons I have made orders in terms set out in sch B.
SCHEDULE A
1.The Second Plaintiff's Objection to the confiscation of frozen property made by Originating Summons dated 10 May 2017 is dismissed.
2.The following property that Leon Lascelles Bettson ('BETTSON') owned or effectively controlled at the time he was declared to be a drug trafficker under section 32A(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 on 13 October 2017 or gave away at any time before that date has been confiscated to the State of Western Australia, namely:
(a)BETTSON's interest as registered proprietor in the land at Lot 687 on Plan 15752 in Certificate of Title Volume 1759 Folio 211, commonly known as 22 Baltusrol Rise, Connolly;
(b)BETTSON's interest as registered proprietor in the land at Lot 2 on Strata Plan 18601 in the Certificate of Title Volume 1862, Folio 448, commonly known as Unit 2/51 Buckingham Drive, Wangara.
(c)Monies standing to the credit of BETTSON trading as 383mx earthmoving in Commonwealth Bank of Australia account numbered 616610840889 as at 13 October 2017 together with any interest thereon;
(d)Monies standing to the credit of BETTSON trading as Marque marine fish in Commonwealth Bank of Australia account numbered 616610840897 as at 13 October 2017 together with any interest thereon;
(e)Monies standing to the credit of BETTSON in Commonwealth Bank of Australia account numbered 600010168463 as at 13 October 2017 together with any interest thereon;
(f)Monies standing to the credit of BETTSON in Commonwealth Bank of Australia account numbered 716710997857 as at 13 October 2017 together with any interest thereon; and
(g)Monies standing to the credit of BETTSON in ING Direct Bank account numbered 11303694 as at 13 October 2017 together with any interest thereon.
3.Such other orders as the Court thinks fit.
SCHEDULE B
1.Pursuant to section 8(1) and section 30 of the Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 the following property that Leon Lascelles Bettson ('BETTSON') owned or effectively controlled at the time he was declared to be a drug trafficker under section 32A(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 on 13 October 2017 or gave away at any time before that date has been confiscated to the State of Western Australia, namely:
(a)BETTSON's interest as registered proprietor in the land at Lot 687 on Plan 15752 in Certificate of Title Volume 1759 Folio 211, commonly known as 22 Baltusrol Rise, Connolly;
(b)BETTSON's interest as registered proprietor in the land at Lot 2 on Strata Plan 18601 in the Certificate of Title Volume 1862, Folio 448, commonly known as Unit 2/51 Buckingham Drive, Wangara.
(c)Monies standing to the credit of BETTSON trading as 383mx earthmoving in Commonwealth Bank of Australia account numbered 616610840889 as at 13 October 2017 together with any interest thereon;
(d)Monies standing to the credit of BETTSON trading as Marque marine fish in Commonwealth Bank of Australia account numbered 616610840897 as at 13 October 2017 together with any interest thereon;
(e)Monies standing to the credit of BETTSON in Commonwealth Bank of Australia account numbered 600010168463 as at 13 October 2017 together with any interest thereon;
(f)Monies standing to the credit of BETTSON in Commonwealth Bank of Australia account numbered 716710997857 as at 13 October 2017 together with any interest thereon; and
(g)Monies standing to the credit of BETTSON in ING Direct Bank account numbered 11303694 as at 13 October 2017 together with any interest thereon subject to the consent orders made by Acting Principal registrar Whitby on 10 December 2018.
2.No order as to costs.
I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.
AB
Research Associate/Orderly to the Honourable Acting Justice Strk
17 DECEMBER 2018
- AGLC
- Bettson v The State of Western Australia [2018] WASC 396
- Case
- [2018] WASC 396
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the property in question was subject to confiscation under section 8(1) of the CPCA and whether the court was compelled to make a declaration of confiscation under section 30 of the CPCA once the legislative criteria were met. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the plaintiff was declared a drug trafficker as a result of a "confiscation offence" committed after the commencement of the CPCA, and whether the property was owned or effectively controlled by the plaintiff at the relevant time.
The court found that the plaintiff had been declared a drug trafficker as a result of a confiscation offence, and that the property in question was owned or effectively controlled by the plaintiff at the time of the declaration. Given that the legislative requirements were satisfied, the court held that the property was subject to confiscation under section 8(1) of the CPCA, and that it vested absolutely in the State. The court further concluded that it was compelled to make a declaration of confiscation under section 30 of the CPCA.
The court ordered that the property specified in the application be confiscated and vest absolutely in the State. The declaration of confiscation was to confirm that the property had been confiscated under section 8(1) of the CPCA.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Section 30 of the CPCA provides:30. Declarations of confiscation, applying for and making(1)The DPP or the CCC may apply to the court for a declaration that property has been confiscated.(2)On considering an application, if the court finds that the property described in the application has been confiscated under section 6, 7 or 8, the court must make a declaration to that effect. Section 8(1) of the CPCA provides:8. Declared drug trafficker, certain property of confiscated(1)When a person is declared to be a drug trafficker under section 32A(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 as a result of being convicted of a confiscation offence that was committed after the commencement of this Act, the following property is confiscated ‑ (a)all the property that the person owns or effectively controls at the time the declaration is made;(b)all property that the person gave away at any time before the declaration was made, whether the gift was made before or after the commencement of this Act. Section 10(1) of the CPCA provides:10. Other property, time and effect of confiscation of under s. 6, 7 or 8(1)Property (except registrable real property) that is confiscated under section 6, 7 or 8 vests absolutely in the State when the section takes effect in relation to the property. Under s 9 of the CPCA, registrable real property does not vest absolutely in the State unless and until the court makes a declaration under s 30 that the property has been confiscated. In this proceeding, the Director of Public Prosecutions has to prove the following under s 8(1) of the CPCA:1.The first plaintiff had been declared to be a drug trafficker pursuant to s 32A(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act.2.The declaration was as a result of 'confiscation offence'. The term 'confiscation offence' is defined in s 141(1) of the CPCA. It includes an offence against a law in force anywhere in Australia that is punishable by imprisonment for two years or more.3.The offence was committed after the commencement of the CPCA, that is, after 1 January 2001.4.The subject property was owned or effectively controlled by the first plaintiff. (The Glossary to the CPCA defines the term 'owner' to mean, in relation to property, a person who has a legal or equitable interest in the property).5.The subject property was so owned or effectively controlled at the time the drug trafficker declaration was made. If the above are proved, then by operation of s 8(1) of the CPCA, the subject property was confiscated at the time the drug trafficker declaration was made, and, by s 10(1) of the CPCA, the property (except registrable real property) vested absolutely in the State at that time. Further, given the mandatory terms of s 30 of the CPCA, the court will be compelled to make a confiscation declaration confirming that the property had been so confiscated under s 8(1). In short, if the legislative requirements are satisfied, the court is required to make a declaration that the property has been confiscated.[1][1] Ranford v The State of Western Australia [2015] WASC 45 [9].