Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions v Baker Constructions Qld Pty Ltd

[2010] QDC 41

[2010] QDC 41

DISTRICT COURT

CIVIL JURISDICTION

JUDGE ROBIN QC

No 1085 of 2009
No 1286 of 2009

COMMONWEALTH DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS	Applicant
and
BARKER CONSTRUCTIONS QLD PTY LTD and WILLIAM FREDERICK BARKER	Respondents

BRISBANE

..DATE 17/02/2010

ORDER

CATCHWORDS
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth) s 180
Discretion to order examinations exercised
 

HIS HONOUR:  In each of these matters the Court has made an order in terms of the initialled draft.

Over the years I have acquired some familiarity with the relevant provisions of and processes under the Commonwealth Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The Court's discretion has to be exercised today pursuant to section 180 as to whether or not to make an examination order in respect of Mr Barker, who is a respondent in his own right, and also the principal of the corporate respondent in 1085 of 2009, also an examination order in respect of the lady who is his current partner.

Mr Barker comes within paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) of section 180. The other proposed examinee comes under paragraph (c).

It is appropriate that the examinations take place. While that occurs, it is also appropriate to adjourn matters before the Court that were returnable today.  Those are the Commonwealth DPP's applications for forfeiture of money the subject of a restraint ordered by the Court in 1286 of 2009 and of real and personal property the subject of two separate orders effecting restraint in the Court.

There are applications by the respondent under section 31 for exoneration of property from the restraint; also under section 73 for exoneration from forfeiture.  Those are appropriately adjourned so that the examination procedures can occur. 

As Ms Gibb, for the applicant, says, the examinations might be appropriate whether or not Mr Barker had produced his explanations on affidavit as to how he has come by the property sought to be exonerated both innocently and, in some respects at least, too early to be caught in the proceeding by the six year relation-back period which is available to the DPP. 

-----