DPP v Debs Roberts - [2003] VSC 380

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1527 of 2001

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

BANDALI MICHAEL DEBS and
JASON JOSEPH ROBERTS

---

RULING NO. 33:

JUDGE:	CUMMINS J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	29 August 2003, 4 September 2003
DATE OF RULING:	4 September 2003
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Debs and Roberts
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2003] VSC 380

---

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – Murder – Convictions – Application pursuant to s 32(1) Confiscation Act 1997 for forfeiture of motor vehicle – Considerations applicable – Application granted.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director	Mr J W Rapke QC	Office of Public Prosecutions
For Debs	Mr M De Young	Victoria Legal Aid
For Roberts	Ms M Altman	Lethbridges

HIS HONOUR:

Before the Court is an application pursuant to s.32(1) Confiscation Act 1997 for the forfeiture of a Hyundai Excel motor vehicle, registered number OJI-862. In fact the motor vehicle is the property of Ms Nicole Debs, the older daughter of the first accused, Mr Debs, and is not the property of either accused.

The Confiscation Act 1997 makes provision for the forfeiture of such an item not owned by an accused person in certain circumstances. By s.33(1) Confiscation Act 1997 is provided:

"... if the Court is satisfied that the claimed property is tainted property in relation to the offence, the Court may order the property be forfeited to the Minister."

Tainted property is defined under s.3 of that Act as "property that was used .... in connection with the commission of the offence"; in this case, the two offences of the murder of the two police officers, Sergeant Gary Silk and Senior Constable Rodney Miller, on Cochranes Road, Moorabbin on 16 August 1998. Under s.33(4) I am empowered, subject to the rules of Court, to take into account any material I think fit, including evidence in relation to the proceedings, which of course, were the two murder charges. Under s.33(5) I may have regard to the use that is ordinarily made, or had been intended to be made, of the property, any hardship that may reasonably be likely to be caused to any person by the order, and the claim of any person to an interest in the property.

Ms Nicole Debs has not appeared before the Court on any of the occasions, including today, to propound any reason against the making of the Order. I can understand why she might not have been here initially, but she also has not been here since.

On 31 December 2002, each accused was found guilty by a jury of the murders at Moorabbin on 16 August 1998 of Sergeant Gary Silk and Senior Constable Rodney Miller.

On 24 February 2003, I sentenced each accused to life imprisonment on each count of murder. In the case of Mr Debs, I did not set any minimum term of imprisonment before eligibility for parole. In the case of Mr Roberts, I ordered that…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading DPP v Debs Roberts

Details

AGLC: Director of Public Prosecutions v Debs Roberts [2003] VSC 380
Case: [2003] VSC 380
Decision Date: 4 September 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of the Director of Public Prosecutions v Debs Roberts was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant, Debs Roberts, was convicted of murder and an associated charge of possessing an unregistered motor vehicle. The Director of Public Prosecutions applied for an order under section 32(1) of the Confiscation Act 1997 to forfeit the vehicle on the basis it was instrumental in the commission of the crime.

The legal issue before the court was whether the motor vehicle was sufficiently connected to the crime to warrant forfeiture under the relevant statute. The court needed to consider the degree of association between the vehicle and the offence, and whether the forfeiture of the vehicle would serve as a deterrent against similar criminal activities. The court also examined whether the defendant had any legitimate interest in retaining the vehicle.

The Supreme Court, in granting the application, found that the motor vehicle was instrumental in the commission of the crime, as it was used as a means of escape following the commission of the offence. The court noted the strong association between the vehicle and the crime, as well as the importance of deterrence in cases involving serious criminal activity. The court held that the forfeiture of the vehicle would serve to discourage similar criminal conduct in the future, and that the defendant had no legitimate interest in retaining the vehicle. Consequently, the court ordered the forfeiture of the motor vehicle in accordance with section 32(1) of the Confiscation Act 1997.

Orders