Londy v District Court of New South Wales

The applicant, Mr Londy, sought leave to appeal against a decision of the District Court of New South Wales. The second respondent, the Commissioner of Police, had sought and obtained an order from the District Court under s 36 of the *Crimes Act 1900* (NSW) for the forfeiture of certain property, namely a motor vehicle, which had been seized by police. Mr Londy contended that the District Court had erred in law in making the forfeiture order.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the District Court had correctly interpreted and applied s 36 of the *Crimes Act 1900* (NSW) in ordering the forfeiture of the vehicle. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the circumstances of the seizure and the applicant's connection to the alleged criminal activity were sufficient to warrant forfeiture under the provisions of that section.

The Court of Appeal, in dismissing the application for leave to appeal, held that the District Court had not erred in its findings. The court reasoned that s 36 of the *Crimes Act 1900* (NSW) permitted forfeiture of property if it was found to have been used in or in connection with the commission of an indictable offence, or if it was the proceeds of an indictable offence. The evidence before the District Court established that the vehicle had been used by a person who was subsequently convicted of a serious drug offence, and that the applicant had been aware of this use. Therefore, the District Court was entitled to conclude that the vehicle was either used in connection with the commission of an indictable offence or was the proceeds of such an offence, justifying the forfeiture order.