In the matter of Ryan

[2022] NSWSC 897

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Application of the New South Wales Crime Commission; In the matter of Ryan [2022] NSWSC 897

Hearing dates:

17 June 2022

Date of orders:

17 June 2022

Decision date:

17 June 2022

Jurisdiction:

Common Law

Before:

Hamill J

Decision:

The Court makes orders 1, 6, 7, 8 and 9 in accordance with the short minutes of order filed by the plaintiff on 17 June 2022.

Catchwords:

CIVIL – confiscation of proceeds of crime – restraining orders sought ex parte – restraining orders made – examination orders refused in circumstances of extant criminal proceedings

Legislation Cited:

Criminal Assets Recovery Act1990 (NSW), ss 7, s 10A

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 36.4(1)(a)

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

New South Wales Crime Commission (Plaintiff)
Edward Jay Ryan (Defendant)

Representation:

Counsel:
S Santhikumar (Plaintiff)

Solicitors:
New South Wales Crime Commission (Plaintiff)

File Number(s):

2022/174899

Ex tempore Judgment (revised)

1. The New South Wales Crime Commission (“the Commission”) has commenced proceedings against the defendant, Edward Jay Ryan, seeking restraining orders under s 10A of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act1990 (NSW) and to do so ex parte. The summons was filed in Court this morning along with a statement of facts and circumstances and an affidavit of Ryan James Bull. There has also been provided, helpfully, proposed short minutes of order.

2. The affidavit of Mr Bull indicates that he is an authorised officer and sets out the facts that he suspects that the defendant has engaged in, being relevant crime related activity, and specifies the supply of various drugs and the participation in a criminal group. The affidavit also sets out the basis upon which that suspicion was formed, particularly in paragraph 4 of the affidavit.

3. Annexed to the affidavit is a police facts sheet which discloses that this was one of a number of drug offences uncovered by a sting operation perpetrated by various law enforcement officers throughout Australia, and indeed the world, using an encrypted electronic communications service known as AN0M. I understand that the fullness of that investigation may be subject to scrutiny, but on the basis of the material in the facts sheet I am satisfied that Mr Bull has reasonable grounds for the suspicion that he has formed and the prerequisites for the orders are established.

4. For reasons I have articulated in many other cases, I do not think it is appropriate to make ex parte orders requiring defendants in extant criminal proceedings to be examined on oath, or to make disclosures. The Commission can bring such an application later and the defendant can be on notice to put up any argument against it. I do accept, even if I made the order, that the Court could be approached by the defendant seeking to have that order revoked. But in my assessment the better course is for the order to be made openly and with the defendant on notice.

5. I will not make those ancillary orders sought by the Commission, but I will make the restraining orders and facilitating orders, being orders 1, 2, 6, 7, 8 and 9 in the short minutes of order.

**********

Decision last updated: 04 August 2022