Commissioner of Police v Cole (No. 3)

The case involved an application by the Commissioner of Police to vary existing Serious Crime Prevention Orders against Cole, pursuant to the Crimes (Serious Crime Prevention Orders) Act 2016 (NSW). The orders had been made due to Cole's involvement in serious criminal activity. The application sought variations to allow Cole to engage in lawful employment, which was initially restricted by the orders. Cole had previously failed to seek exceptions to the restrictions, leading to an initial application by the police being dismissed. The legal issues at hand were whether the court should vary the orders given that there had been no change in circumstances since the original orders were made and whether Cole's omission to seek exceptions to the restrictions was a valid reason to vary the orders.

The court considered that the original orders were made based on a comprehensive assessment of Cole's criminal history and the potential risk he posed to the community. Given that there had been no change in circumstances since the initial orders were issued, the court was hesitant to vary them without compelling evidence. The court further noted that Cole had not taken the necessary steps to seek exceptions to the restrictions that would have allowed him to pursue lawful employment, thereby omitting an available remedy. Despite the police being satisfied that the variation was legitimate, the court held that the failure to seek exceptions to the restrictions constituted a significant factor against varying the orders. Ultimately, the court decided that there were insufficient grounds to vary the existing orders.

The court dismissed the application to vary the Serious Crime Prevention Orders, reaffirming the importance of procedural steps in seeking variations to restrictive orders. The orders remained in place, and Cole was reminded of the need to follow due process in any future applications to vary the restrictions placed upon him.