Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions v Mare

The appellant, the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, brought an application under section 49(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth) for the forfeiture of property. The respondents, Mare and others, sought to have the application struck out on the basis that the appellant should have brought a confiscation order under section 47(1) of the Act. The appellant then sought leave to amend its application under section 62 of the Act by substituting section 47(1) instead of section 49(1). The primary judge found that the appellant had not brought an application for a confiscation order within the terms of section 45(2) of the Act and refused the appellant’s application to amend. The appellant appealed, contending that the primary judge erred in striking out the application for a forfeiture order and in rejecting the application to amend.

The legal issues before the court were whether the primary judge erred in striking out the appellant’s application for a forfeiture order and in rejecting the appellant’s application to amend. The court considered whether the primary judge’s interpretation of section 45(2) of the Act was correct and whether the appellant’s application to amend its application under section 62 of the Act was valid. The court also considered whether the appellant’s failure to bring a confiscation order within the terms of section 45(2) of the Act was fatal to its application for a forfeiture order. The court held that the primary judge erred in striking out the appellant’s application for a forfeiture order and in rejecting the appellant’s application to amend. The court found that the primary judge’s interpretation of section 45(2) of the Act was incorrect and that the appellant’s application to amend its application under section 62 of the Act was valid.

The court held that the primary judge erred in striking out the appellant’s application for a forfeiture order and in rejecting the appellant’s application to amend. The court found that the primary judge’s interpretation of section 45(2) of the Act was incorrect and that the appellant’s application to amend its application under section 62 of the Act was valid. The court held that the appellant’s failure to bring a confiscation order within the terms of section 45(2) of the Act did not necessarily mean that its application for a forfeiture order was invalid. The court held that the appellant’s application for a forfeiture order was valid and that the primary judge should have allowed the appellant to amend its application under section 62 of the Act. The court also held that the respondents should pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal and the appellant’s costs of and incidental to both applications.

The court allowed the appeal and set aside the orders of the primary judge dated 6 June 2008. The court granted the application for amendment filed by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions on 3 March 2008. The court dismissed the application filed by the second respondent and sixth respondent on 28 April 2008. The court ordered that the respondents pay the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions’ costs of and incidental to both applications, to be assessed on the standard basis. The court also ordered that the respondents pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal to be assessed on the standard basis.