Brooks & Anor v State of Queensland

[2007] HCATrans 386

[2007] HCATrans 386

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Brisbane  No B41 of 2006

B e t w e e n -

DALE RICHARD BROOKS

First Applicant

LEE PATRICIA McCABE

Second Applicant

and

STATE OF QUEENSLAND

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

GUMMOW J
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 2 AUGUST 2007, AT 9.42 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

GUMMOW J:   During the course of a covert police operation conducted by the Queensland Police Service, Mr Brooks ('the applicant') was suspected of drug trafficking.  The respondent sought a proceeds assessment order against the applicant for $1,039,400 under the Criminal Proceeds Confiscation Act 2002 (Qld). The applicant did not dispute the respondent's case that he had engaged in "serious crime related activity". The respondent then sought forfeiture of further sums relating to profits from the sale of an apartment in Toowong. The "serious crime related activity" in relation to this latter forfeiture was that the applicant had committed an offence under s 408C of the Criminal Code (Qld) when he obtained credit from the Adelaide Bank by misrepresenting his income.

In the Supreme Court before McMurdo J the respondent was partially successful and obtained a proceeds assessment order of approximately $35,000 plus the forfeiture of some of the applicant's property. McMurdo J ruled that s 22 of the Criminal Proceeds Confiscation Act did not require the forfeiture of funds from the sale of the Toowong apartment.

The respondent appealed the quantum of the proceeds assessment order. In the Court of Appeal, Keane JA and Jones J allowed the respondent's appeal, with Jerrard JA dissenting in part. The majority of the Court ruled that s 18 of the Criminal Proceeds Confiscation Act permitted the forfeiture of the proceeds of sale from the Toowong apartment, and the sum of some $85,000 was added to the proceeds assessment order to be paid by the applicant.

In this Court, the applicants have shown insufficient reasons to doubt the Court of Appeal's interpretation of the Criminal Proceeds Confiscation Act 2002 (Qld). There are insufficient prospects of success to justify a grant of special leave.

Pursuant to r 41.11.1 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application for special leave and I publish the disposition signed by Justice Heydon and myself.

AT 9.44 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED