New South Wales Crime Commission v Abdulkhalek

[2018] NSWSC 2030

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	New South Wales Crime Commission v Abdulkhalek [2018] NSWSC 2030
Hearing dates:	9 November 2018
Date of orders:	09 November 2018
Decision date:	09 November 2018
Jurisdiction:	Common Law
Before:	Walton J
Decision:	In all the circumstances, I make the orders sought by the Commission in terms filed in these proceedings today.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW) – restraining order – ex parte – orders made
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	New South Wales Crime Commission (Plaintiff) Mohamed Abdulkhalek (Defendant)
Representation:	Solicitors: New South Wales Crime Commission (Plaintiff)
File Number(s):	2018/347335

extempore Judgment

1. HIS HONOUR: This matter concerns an application by the NSW Crime Commission pursuant to s 10A of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW) (“the Act”) for a restraining order in respect of all the interests in property of Mohamed Abdulkhalek. The application is supported by the affidavit of Katie Elaine Bourne sworn 8 November 2018 and a Statement of Facts and Circumstances relied upon in an application for a restraining order pursuant to r 1.26 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW).

2. Ms Bourne is an authorised officer for the purposes of the Act. She deposed that she suspects Mr Abdulkhalek of having engaged in serious crime-related activity, namely, supply a prohibited drug (methylamphetamine) not less than a large commercial quantity applicable to that prohibited drug contrary to s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) (the "DMT Act"); supply a prohibited drug (gamma-butyrolactone) not less than a large commercial quantity applicable to that prescribed drug contrary to s 25(2) of the DMT Act; and supply a prohibited drug (methylamphetamine) contrary to s 25(1) of the DMT Act. Ms Bourne gave grounds for her suspicions.

3. The facts and circumstances on which the Commission relies in its application are the suspicion held by Ms Bourne for the offences; a police facts sheet for case number H70708955, that describes the suspected serious criminal activity, from which Ms Bourne holds her suspicion Mr Abdulkhalek of having engaged (Ms Bourne had regard to the said facts sheet and accepts it); and Ms Bourne has ascertained that Mr Abdulkhalek has been charged with offences described in the facts sheet. There are, in the submission of the Commission, reasonable grounds for Ms Bourne's suspicion that Mr Abdulkhalek has engaged in a serious crime-related activity.

4. Having regard to the terms of the affidavit, the police facts sheet and the bases for Ms Bourne's suspicions, I consider that there are reasonable grounds for the suspicions held by her.

5. There are orders sought for an assets forfeiture and an unexplained wealth order. The facts and circumstances relied upon by the Commission, with respect to those orders, are set out in paras 5 to 7 of the facts statement and, in my view, provide an ample basis for the making of the orders in question.

6. In all the circumstances, I make the orders sought by the Commission in terms filed in these proceedings today.

7. I have executed the orders under seal, a copy of which I provide to the Commission.

**********

Decision last updated: 28 February 2019