Director of Public Prosecutions v Jadon
[2023] SADC 13
•21 February 2023
District Court of South Australia
(Civil)
DPP v JADON & ORS
[2023] SADC 13
Reasons for Decision of his Honour Judge Durrant
21 February 2023
CRIMINAL LAW - PROCEDURE - CONFISCATION OF PROCEEDS OF CRIME AND RELATED MATTERS - RESTRAINING OR FREEZING ORDER - GENERALLY
Order made to restrain disposition or dealing in five motor vehicles- order for retention of vehicles sought- whether a discretion to exclude vehicles from retention- whether vehicles are required for personal use or to conduct business or to commence business of vehicle hire- order to restrain disposition or dealing in jewellery- whether effective control of the jewellery.
Held:
1. The criteria for the retention of the five motor vehicles have been established.
2. The court does not have a discretion to exclude the five motor vehicles from retention.
3. The applicant is entitled to an order for retention of the five motor vehicles.
4. The jewellery is under effective control of the first respondent.
5. The applicant is entitled to an order to restrain the dealing in or disposition of the jewellery.
Criminal Assets Confiscation Act 2005 (SA) ss 3, 6, 24, 26, 40, 47, 56B, 77, 95, 187; Motor Vehicles Act 1959 (SA) ss 9, 140; Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA) s 32; National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (Cth), referred to.
R v Nguyen (2013) 117 SASR 432; Solicitor-General v Bartlett [2008] 1 NZLR 87; The Director of Public Prosecutions v Mouroufas [2010] SADC 91, considered.
DPP v JADON & ORS
[2023] SADC 13
Introduction
The first respondent Steven Saheed Jadon has been charged with three ‘serious offences’ under the Criminal Assets Confiscation Act 2005 (SA).[1]
[1] Criminal Assets Confiscation Act 2006 (SA) s 3; Affidavit of Michael Wilson affirmed 19 December 2022 (FDN3), [21]- [22].
The Director of Public Prosecutions has applied to restrain and retain the interests and property of Mr Jadon, and a company controlled by him, the second respondent Triiia Pty Ltd, in enumerated real property, motor vehicles, cash, stocks, shares, gold bullion, jewellery, assorted liquor and crypto currency.[2]
[2] Originating Application filed 6 January 2023 (FDN1); Criminal Assets Confiscation Act 2006 (SA) ss 24, 26, 40, 47, 56B, 77, 95, 187.
On 17 January 2023, orders were made to restrain disposition of or dealing in that property, save for the jewellery,[3] and for police to retain certain of the restrained property, save for five motor vehicles.[4] If Mr Jadon is convicted, orders will be sought for forfeiture and pecuniary penalty.[5]
[3] Originating Application dated 6 January 2023 (FDN1), [4]; Order dated 17 January 2023 (FDN9), [4].
[4] Notice of Acting dated 18 January 2023 (FDN7); Order dated 18 January 2023 (FDN9); Criminal Assets Confiscation Act 2006 (SA) s 187(2)(b).
[5] Criminal Assets Confiscation Act 2006 (SA), ss 3, 74, 95.
These are my reasons as to whether police should retain the five vehicles and whether disposition of or dealing in the jewellery should be restrained,
Established Facts
I find the following facts established.
Mr Jadon was arrested on 13 December 2022 and charged on information with a ‘serious offence’ under the Criminal Assets Confiscation Act 2005 (SA).[6]
[6] Criminal Assets Confiscation Act 2006 (SA) s 3; Affidavit of Michael Wilson affirmed 19 December 2022 (FDN3), [21]- [22].
Mr Jadon was granted home detention bail on 20 December 2022.[7] Conditions required him to reside at 5 Eastleigh Ave, Golden Grove and prohibited his attendance at the business premises of Triiia Pty Ltd at 61 Greenwith Rd, Golden Grove. On 8 February 2023, bail was varied to remove home detention conditions and the prohibition from attendance.
[7] Ibid, [36]- [38].
Triiia Pty Ltd was incorporated on 2 February 2016.[8] Mr Jadon is its sole director and shareholder.[9]
[8] Ibid, Exhibit MW12.
[9] Ibid.
Triiia Pty Ltd is the registered owner of a 2019 Mercedes Benz utility registration XA584M.[10] On 26 June 2019, Triia Pty Ltd, in its own right and as trustee for the Jadon Family Trust, borrowed from Mercedes Benz Financial Services Pty Ltd $106,940.00 to finance the purchase of the utility from Daimler Trucks Adelaide.[11] That loan is secured by Chattel Mortgage over the vehicle.[12] Under the loan agreement Triiia Pty Ltd must pay 60 monthly instalments of $1663.04 and upon expiry on 26 June 2025, $30,301.88. On 13 December 2022, the utility was seized by police from 61 Greenwith Rd.[13]
[10] Motor Vehicles Act 1959 (SA) s 140; Affidavit of Michael Wilson affirmed 19 December 2022 (FDN3), [38] and [40] and Exhibits MW21 and MW23.
[11] Affidavit of Steven Saheed Jadon dated 30 January 2023 (FDN25), Exhibit SJ3.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Affidavit of Michael Wilson affirmed 19 December 2022 (FDN3), [38].
Triiia Pty Ltd is the registered owner of a 2021 Mercedes Benz G63 station wagon registered XB370S.[14] On 17 July 2021, Triiia Pty Ltd, in its own right and as trustee for the Jadon Family Trust, borrowed from Mercedes Benz Financial Services Pty Ltd $285,688.40 to finance the purchase of the station wagon from Mercedes-Benz Adelaide.[15] That loan is secured by Chattel Mortgage over that vehicle.[16] Under the loan agreement Triiia Pty Ltd must pay 60 monthly instalments of $3151.95 and upon expiry on 20 June 2026, $96,571.48. On 13 December 2022, police seized that vehicle from 61 Greenwith Rd.[17]
[14] Motor Vehicles Act 1959 (SA) s 140; Affidavit of Michael Wilson affirmed 19 December 2022 (FDN3), [38] and [40] and Exhibits MW21 and MW23.
[15] Affidavit of Steven Saheed Jadon dated 30 January 2023 (FDN25), Exhibit SJ4.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Affidavit of Michael Wilson affirmed 19 December 2022 (FDN3) [40].
Mr Jadon is the registered owner of a Holden sedan XC150C.[18] On 13 December 2022, police seized that vehicle from 61 Greenwith Rd.[19]
[18] Motor Vehicles Act 1959 (SA) s 140; Affidavit of Michael Wilson affirmed 19 December 2022 (FDN3), [57], Exhibits MW21 and MW23.
[19] Affidavit of Michael Wilson affirmed 19 December 2022 (FDN3), [41].
Mr Jadon is the registered owner of a Harley Davidson motorcycle SGLZ.[20] On 13 December 2022, police seized that motorcycle from 5 Eastleigh Ave.[21]
[20] Affidavit of Steven Saheed Jadon dated 30 January 2023 (FDN25), [64].
[21] Affidavit of Michael Wilson affirmed 19 December 2022, [47].
Mr Jadon is the owner of an unregistered 2022 Lamborghini Huracan.[22] On or about 29 November 2022, Mr Jadon agreed a Chattel Mortgage and Loan with Volkswagon Financial Services Australia Pty Ltd to borrow $391,675.00 in respect of the purchase of that vehicle. [23] Mr Jadon agreed to pay 59 monthly instalments of $4759.33 and a residual of $279,000.00. On 13 December 2022, police seized that vehicle from 5 Eastleigh Ave.[24]
[22] Affidavit of Michael Wilson affirmed 19 December 2022 (FDN3), Exhibits MW21 and MW23.
[23] Affidavit of Steven Saheed Jadon dated 30 January 2023 (FDN25), [68], Exhibit SJ9.
[24] Ibid, [49].
On 9 March 2018, Class A Jewellers provided to Mr Jadon a written valuation of $29,595.00 for a single multi set diamond ring.[25] On 29 October 2021, Class A Jewellers provided to Mr Jadon and the first interested party and wife of Mr Jadon, Georgia Lee Jadon, a written valuation of $28,660.00 for a solitaire diamond ring and a written valuation of $9,395.00 for a multi-set diamond ring.[26] On 13 December 2022, police executed a warrant at 5 Eastleigh Ave and located and seized and have possession of the solitaire and two multi set diamond rings the subject of the written valuations, and one further multi set diamond ring.
[25] Ibid, Exhibit MW40.
[26] Affidavit of Michael Wilson affirmed 19 December 2022 (FDN3), Exhibit MW40.
Evidence and assertions of the first respondent
While only Mr Jadon filed a Notice of Acting and appeared, he deposed to authorisation to represent on behalf of the second to ninth respondents.[27]
[27] FDN 7; Affidavit of Steven Shaheed Jadon sworn 27 January 2023 (FDN25).
Mr Jadon said the trustee of the Jadon Family Trust holds SJ Premium Tiling, Triiia Removalists and Triiia Insulation, which operate from 61 Greenwith Rd. He described Triiia Pty Ltd as the parent company of SJ Premium Tiling, Triiia Removalists. He said he owns Triiia Insulation directly.
Mr Jadon said he purchased the Mercedes Benz utility on 28 June 2019 and is making the monthly payments of $1663.04. He said he used that vehicle for day-to-day transport to attend his businesses at 61 Greenwith Rd and three gymnasiums operated by the fifth, eighth and ninth respondents and for daily school drop offs and pickups and as a coach since 2022 at Modbury Jets Soccer Club.
Mr Jadon said he purchased Mercedes Benz station wagon on 17 July 2021, for $242,000.00, with finance secured by Mercedes Benz. He said he makes the monthly repayments of $3,151.95 and was provided advice by his accountant to purchase the vehicle to offset his taxable income and as an appreciating asset.
Mr Jadon said he was involved in but had not concluded negotiations to sell the station wagon at a substantial profit. Mr Jadon said that if he did not obtain his desired sale price, he ‘had made plans to start a business hiring high performance vehicles for special events at a fee of about $1,500.00 to $2,000.00 per booking’.[28]
[28] Ibid, [55.f].
Mr Jadon said as a performance sports vehicle, it is essential to prepare the Mercedes station wagon for long term storage. He said fluids and fuel need to be topped off, the motor oil and filter need to be changed and a stabiliser added to prevent denaturing and clogging of the vehicles fuel system.
In respect of the Holden sedan, Mr Jadon said he purchased it for $65,000.00, using his and his wife’s savings and as an investment. He said that car is a 37-year-old VL Holden in showroom condition which has been stored in a garage protecting it from the elements and is not insured. He was concerned the vehicle would depreciate if not stored properly.
Mr Jadon said he purchased the Harley Davidson in about November 2015, with $29,623.30 financed by Harley Davidson Finance. He said he discharged that loan on 11 November 2020 and the motorcycle is in show room condition and is insured for $70,000.00. Mr Jadon said he intended to use it for hire for special events and projects a weekly income of $1,500.00 to $2,000.00.
Mr Jadon said he purchased the Lamborghini for $557,000.00 in about December 2022 and contributed $167,000.00 to the purchase from his funds and financed $390,000.00. He said the purchase was made on the advice of his accountant as a lawful means to reduce taxable income and as a business venture for hire for special events. He said he was making the monthly repayments of $4759.33, and the car has the potential to earn income.
Mr Jadon said it is essential to prepare for long term storage of a performance sports vehicles like the Lamborghini. He said fluids and fuel need to be topped and the oil filter needs an entire change, and a stabiliser should be added to prevent denaturing and clogging of the fuel system. He was concerned if not properly prepared and maintained, there would likely be a deterioration in value.
In respect of the four diamond rings seized by police, Mr Jadon said, they ‘are owned by my wife and are her property’ and ‘do not belong to me, nor do I have any claim or control over them’.[29]
[29] Affidavit of Steven Saheed Jadon dated 30 January 2023 (FDN25), [71]- [75].
Submissions of Applicant
The applicant accepted that while the criteria for retention has been satisfied, this Court has a discretion to exclude restrained material from retention.
The applicant submitted that an order for retention should be made as there was no basis to exercise that discretion, as it had not been established the five vehicles have been or were to be used for business purposes.
As for the jewellery, the applicant submitted the valuations obtained by Mr Jadon established he had ‘effective control’ and the criteria for restraint have been satisfied and the court must make an order for restraint.[30]
[30] Ibid, ss 6, 24.
Submissions of First Respondent
Mr Henchliffe KC, for Mr Jadon, submitted inconvenience to a person from whom property had been taken is relevant to the discretion to exclude restrained property from retention. In that respect, Mr Jadon said he would consent to orders he retain the vehicles in current condition, maintain current insurance and registration and hand them over within seven days of any forfeiture.
In this case, Mr Jadon submitted, the retention of the vehicles will affect him as he had either been using them for personal and business purposes before they were seized or had intended to use them in the future for business purposes.
Further, Mr Jadon submitted, retention may impact the value of the vehicles and may be an event of default under the various finance agreements in place.
Mr Jadon distinguished between a necessary restraint and retention to protect assets and his proffered undertaking to maintain and use those assets to generate income to support his family and fund his defence. That undertaking and intention, Mr Jadon submitted, provided a basis to exclude the vehicles from retention.
As for the jewellery, Mr Jadon submitted I should accept his evidence the rings are owned by his wife, and he had no control over them. Particularly, Mr Henchliffe said, the court can take notice they are clearly rings to be worn by a female and while the valuations were addressed to Mr Jadon, it would not be at all surprising if Mr Jadon may have overseen the insurance affairs for his family. That the valuations were addressed to Mr Jadon did not mean, it was submitted, the rings are the property of Mr Jadon or that he had effective control over them.
Consideration
The Criminal Assets Confiscation Act 2005 (SA) was enacted ‘to provide for the confiscation of proceeds of crime; to provide for the confiscation of property of certain drug offenders as an additional punishment; and for other purposes’.
Mr Jadon has been charged with trafficking in a large commercial quantity of a controlled drug.[31] That is both a ‘serious offence’ and a ‘serious drug offence’ under the Act.[32] If convicted Mr Jadon would be a ‘prescribed drug offender’ and subject to forfeiture of property owned or subject to effective control.[33]
[31] Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA), s 32(1); Affidavit of Michael Wilson affirmed 19 December 2022 (FDN3), Exhibit MW1.
[32] Criminal Assets Confiscation Act 2005 (SA), ss 3, 6A
[33] Ibid, s 6A, 56A.
It is agreed the criteria for retention of the five vehicles have been established. In that respect, the Criminal Assets Confiscation Act 2005 (SA), s187 (2) provides:
If—
(a)material liable to seizure under this Act has been seized under a search warrant, or under Subdivision 3, on the ground that a person believes on reasonable grounds that it is tainted property; and
(b)a restraining order is made in relation to the material; and
(c)at the time when the restraining order is made, the material is in the possession of the responsible custodian,
the responsible custodian of the material may apply to the court that made the restraining order for an order that the responsible custodian retain possession of the material.
I find the vehicles had been seized under warrant, a restraining order had been made in relation to them and at that time the vehicles had been in the possession of the responsible custodian.[34]
[34] Ibid, s 187(2)(b): Order dated 18 January 2023 (FDN9).
In the exercise of the power to order retention under s 187(2), the applicant and Mr Jadon said a discretion exists to exclude the vehicles. As I understand it, the parties consider that to be a consequence of the inclusion of ‘may’ in the chapeau of s 187(2).
I have not adopted that construction.
Section 187(2) does not say the court may make an order, as it does in respect of freezing orders. [35] Nor does it say the court must make an order if certain criteria are satisfied, as it does in respect of restraining orders.[36]
[35] Ibid, s 17.
[36] Ibid, s 24.
Rather, s 187(2) says a responsible custodian ‘may apply to the court that made the restraining order for an order that the responsible custodian retain possession of the material’. Consequently, the responsible custodian makes the decision about the material to be retained. The Parliament has not enabled the exclusion upon application of any material from a retention order or the revocation of a retaining order, as it has done in respect of restrained property.[37]
[37] Ibid, s 28.
I consider s 187(2) requires, if the court is satisfied the criteria to make an order has been established, that the order for retention be made. That construction promotes the purposes of the Act. It means that absent an order, material must be returned to the person from whom it was seized, subject to its continuing restraint.[38]
[38] Ibid, ss 33, 186 (1),
For those reasons, I find the applicant, having satisfied the criteria in s 187(2), is entitled in this case to an order for retention of the five vehicles.
In the event I have erred in my construction of the Act and am required to consider a discretion to exclude the vehicles from retention, in exercising that discretion, I would have declined to exclude the five vehicles.
Mr Jadon contended several bases for exclusion. First, he had used the utility for personal errands and travel between businesses. Second, he wanted to operate a vehicle rental business for the station wagon, Harley Davidson and Lamborghini. Third, improper storage of the Holden, station wagon and the Lamborghini may diminish their value. Finally, retention may be a breach of the finance agreements.
The utility is owned by the Triiia Pty Ltd, in its own right and as trustee. Mr Jadon said it had been used to attend businesses in Golden Grove, Modbury, Prospect and Kent Town, to drop off children and be a volunteer coach. Mr Jadon did not depose to its use in the operation of any business.
Triiia Pty Ltd owns a 2018 Land Rover. The applicant did not apply for retention of that seized vehicle as it was appropriate to allow its use by Mrs Jadon to carry out daily general household chores, children’s activities and school pickups and drop offs.[39] Mr Jadon can also use that vehicle.
[39] Affidavit of Steven Saheed Jadon dated 30 January 2023 (FDN25), [66]; T5.19- 8.2.
The businesses in which Mr Jadon has been involved are now less extensive. Mr Jadon said without two seized Hino trucks, owned by Triiia Pty Ltd and subject to finance, Triiia Removalists and Triiia Insulation, could not operate.[40] No submission was made that those trucks, or a 2010 Hyundai van, a 2005 Mitsubishi truck and a 2002 Isuzu truck used in the businesses, should be excluded.[41]
[40] Ibid, [58]-[63].
[41] Ibid, [6],[27].
The financiers are protected. They are interested parties and the restraining order is subject to their rights and interests.[42]
[42] Order dated 18 January 2023 (FDN9), [2].
Further, no event of default under any finance agreement applicable to the vehicles, or a breach of such agreements, was brought to my attention. Only the terms and conditions of the loan agreement for the utility were in evidence and while Triiia Pty Ltd has agreed not to allow anything to happen that would allow seizure, it is the laying of charges against Mr Jadon, not any action of Triiia Pty Ltd, which founds the orders. As borrower and chattel mortgagor, the obligation of Triiia Pty Ltd is to inform the financier in writing of this action.[43]
[43] Affidavit of Steven Saheed Jadon dated 30 January 2023 (FDN25), Exhibit SJ3, Clause 5.6(e).
Mr Jadon said if the station wagon, Lamborghini, and Harley Davidson are returned he will hire them out for fee.
The Mercedes wagon is owned by Triii Pty Ltd in its own right and as trustee of the fourth respondent. I do not know what use of the vehicle the trust allows. Mr Jadon said that prior to his arrest he was involved in negotiations to sell the station wagon at a substantial profit and his ‘plans’ to hire out that vehicle depended on a failure to agree a satisfactory price.
I am not satisfied the operation of a business hiring out high performance vehicles had developed beyond an idea. Mr Jadon did not prove the ‘plans to start a business hiring out high performance vehicles’ he said he ‘had made’.
There is no evidence the station wagon has been hired out. Mr Jadon said he had owned the Harley Davidson motorcycle since 2015. There is no evidence it has been hired out. When seized, the Lamborghini was unregistered.[44]
[44] Motor Vehicles Act 1959, (SA) s 9; Affidavit of Michael Wilson affirmed 19 December 2022 (FDN3), MW32.
Mr Jadon said he had purchased the Lamborghini Huracan in about December 2022 for approximately $557,000.00; with finance of $390,000.00 and his own funds. That purchase, said Mr Jadon, was made on the advice of his accountant to reduce taxable income and as a business venture to hire it out.
A letter dated 29 November 2022, from an accountant addressed ‘To whom it may concern’ and headed ‘Jadon Family Trust- Mr Steve Jadon’ was produced and said that ‘as the accountant and the tax agent for the above related entity and client [we] can confirm that the vehicle Lamborghini is predominantly used for Business Purposes.’ Consistently, Mr Jadon as borrower under the finance contract declared the credit provided is predominately for business or investment purposes.
That correspondence and declaration is not evidence of a business venture. It is a declaration to establish the credit provided has been applied wholly or predominantly for business or investment purposes under the National Credit Code, contained in the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (Cth), thus avoiding the application of that regulatory regime.[45]
[45] National Credit Code, s 13(2); National Consumer Credit Protection Regulations 2010, r 3, 68.
The combined purchase price of the vehicles said by Mr Jadon to be part of his plan, is $959,251.17.[46] The accounting advice said to have been given was not provided to the court. Nor was any business name registration, insurance documents allowing rental of the vehicles, cashflow or a profit and loss analysis or any proposed marketing material or plan provided.
[46] 2021 Mercedes Benz G63 station wagon ($285,688.40), 2019 Mercedes Benz utility ($106,940.00), Harley Davidson motorcycle ($29,623.30), Lamborghini ($557,000.00).
As for the concerns about storage of the vehicles, the owners are protected. The responsible custodian must ensure all reasonable steps are taken to preserve material while it is kept.[47] Further, the Crown has undertaken to abide any court order for payment of damages or costs for the making and operation of the order.[48]
[47] Criminal Assets Confiscation Act 2005 (SA), s 181.
[48] Ibid, s 26.
In respect of the four diamond rings, I must order restraint if there are reasonable grounds to suspect they are subject to ‘effective control’ of Mr Jadon.[49] Under section 6 (1) of the Criminal Assets Confiscation Act 2005 (SA):[50]
[49] Ibid, s 24(5)(a).
[50] Ibid, s 6(1).
For the purposes of the Act, the following principles apply when determining whether property is subject to effective control of a person:
(a) property may be subject to the effective control of a person whether or not the person has an interest in the property;
(b) property that is held on trust for the ultimate benefit of a person is taken to be subject to the effective control of the person;
(c) if a person is one of 2 or more beneficiaries under a discretionary trust, the following undivided proportion of the trust property is taken to be subject to the effective control of the person:
(d) if property is initially owned by a person and, within 6 years (whether before or after) of -
(i) an application for a restraining order or a confiscation order being made; or(ii) the person becoming a prescribed drug offender, is disposed of to another person without sufficient consideration, then the property is taken still to be subject to the effective control of the first person;
(e) property may be subject to the effective control of a person even if one or more other persons have joint control of the property.
(2) In determining whether or not property is subject to the effective control of a person, regard may be had to -
(a) shareholdings in, debentures over or directorships of a company that has an interest (whether direct or indirect) in the property; and
(b) a trust that has a relationship to the property; and
(c)family, domestic and business relationships between persons having an interest in the property, or in companies of the kind referred to in paragraph (a) or trusts of the kind referred to in paragraph (b), and other persons.
In my consideration of whether reasonable grounds to suspect exist, I have been neither overly incredulous nor naively gullible.[51] I am satisfied there are reasonable grounds to suspect the rings are subject to effective control of Mr Jadon.
63 In being so satisfied, I have had regard to the nature of domestic relationships between husband and wife and that the rings were found in the bedroom area of the home and in such circumstances rings may be subject to the effective control of a person (a husband) even if another person (a wife) has joint control.[52]
[51] Having regard to the principles explained in R v Nguyen (2013) 117 SASR 432, [21]-[22].
[52] Criminal Assets Confiscation Act 2005 (SA), s 6(1)(e).
I do consider the location of valuable rings in the bedroom of the family home, the nature of domestic property being often in the effective control of both a husband and wife and the provision of valuation certificates addressed solely to Mr Jadon and jointly to both him and his wife, does establish reasonable grounds to suspect that property is subject to effective control of Mr Jadon.[53]
Whether the rings are likely to be worn by a female neither establishes ownership by Mrs Jadon nor impacts my reasonable suspicion that Mr Jadon has effective control, as an interest in the rings on his part is not required.[54]
No evidence of purchase was provided. While counsel said Mr Jadon may have been responsible for placing insurance for the rings, there was no evidence of that explanation, and no certificates of insurance were provided.
Orders
[53] Ibid, s 24(5)(a); Solicitor- General v Bartlett [2008] 1 NZLR 87; The Director of Public Prosecutions v Mouroufas [2010] SADC 91.
[54] Criminal Assets Confiscation Act 2005 (SA), s 6(1)(a).
I find orders should be made:
1.for retention of the 2019 Mercedes Benz utility XA584M, the 2021 Mercedes Benz G63 station wagon XB370S, the Holden sedan XC150C, the Harley Davidson motorcycle SGLZ and the 2022 Lamborghini Huracan; and
2.for restraint of the solitaire diamond ring and three multi-set diamond rings seized by police.
In the event orders cannot be agreed, liberty to apply is granted.
1
1