DPP v Gyurcsik - [2007] VSC 424

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION

No. 1471 of 2006

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS Applicant
v
LASZLOE GYURCSIK	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	KELLAM J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	17 April, 7 May 2007
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	1 November 2007
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Gyurcsik
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2007] VSC 424

---

CONFISCATION ACT 1997 – Tainted Property – Forfeiture Application – Possession and Cultivation of Marijuana – Hardship to third parties – Applicable Principles.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr J Lewis	Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Respondent	Mr J Hannebury	Balmer and Associates

---

HIS HONOUR:

The Director of Public Prosecutions seeks forfeiture of property of the defendant pursuant to s 32 of the Confiscation Act 1997 (‘the Act’). Amongst other things, the Director relies upon the following formal matters;

(a)that the jurisdiction to make a Confiscation Order arises by reason of the respondent having been convicted in the Magistrates’ Court on 17 November 2006 of the offence of cultivating narcotic plants (cannabis) which is a Schedule 1 offence within the meaning of the Act,
(b)that the property, the subject of this application, is ‘tainted property’ within the meaning of the Act,
(c)that the application for forfeiture has been made within time, and
(e)that no previous application has been made under s 32(1) of the Act in relation to the conviction.

The respondent concedes all the formal matters referred to above but contends that s 33(1) of the Act confers a discretionary power upon the Court as to whether to make a forfeiture order in all the circumstances, and that the circumstances in this case are such that in the proper exercise of discretion the application should be refused.

The relevant facts are set out in an affidavit and the exhibits thereto sworn on 19 September 2005, by Benjamin Robert Wiseman, a Detective Senior Constable attached to the Proceeds Squad of Victoria Police. This affidavit was sworn in support of the preliminary application for a restraining order in the County Court. In summary, the relevant facts are as follows. On 23 July 2005, as a result of a police investigation into drug trafficking and cultivation in the Geelong region, police executed a search warrant at premises situated at 620 Ballan Road, Moorabool. That address is the address of the property, the subject of this proceeding.

As a result of the execution of the search warrant, police located 12 immature cannabis plants each of which was approximately half a metre in height, growing under lights in a shed on the property. Furthermore, 10.68 kilograms of cannabis heads in weatherproof plastic drums were located upon the property. The respondent was arrested that day and interviewed by police in relation to the matters. He made full admissions to the cultivation and possession of the cannabis plants and cannabis heads.

On 20 September 2005 an application made by the applicant under s 16 of the Act came on…

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 Gyurcsik

Details

AGLC: Director of Public Prosecutions v Gyurcsik [2007] VSC 424
Case: [2007] VSC 424
Decision Date: 1 November 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of DPP v Gyurcsik involved the Director of Public Prosecutions seeking a forfeiture order under the Confiscation Act 1997 against property owned by the defendant, Gyurcsik. The property in question was a residence where marijuana was found to be cultivated. The dispute centred on whether the property should be forfeited as tainted property under the Act. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant argued that the forfeiture of the property would result in significant hardship to third parties, specifically his wife and children who resided in the house.

The legal issues before the court were whether the property qualified as tainted property under the Confiscation Act 1997 and whether the potential hardship to third parties warranted a departure from the general forfeiture principles. The court had to determine if the cultivation of marijuana constituted a serious criminal offence warranting forfeiture, and if the hardship to the defendant's family should be considered in the decision-making process. The case required the court to balance the objectives of the Confiscation Act, which aim to deprive criminals of the proceeds of their unlawful activities, against the potential impact on innocent third parties.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the property did indeed qualify as tainted property given the serious nature of the offence of cultivating marijuana. The court acknowledged the defendant's argument regarding the hardship to his family, but held that the primary objective of the Confiscation Act was to prevent the benefits of criminal activity from reaching the offender. While the court recognised the hardship to the defendant's family, it determined that this did not override the statutory purpose of forfeiture. Consequently, the court ordered the forfeiture of the property in accordance with the provisions of the Confiscation Act 1997.

Orders