New South Wales Crime Commission v Dykyj

The case before the court involved the New South Wales Crime Commission and the defendant, Dykyj. The dispute centred on a proceeds assessment order made under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (NSW). Dykyj applied to the court for an adjournment to enable him to file a defence to the order. Dykyj did not oppose the order itself but sought time to prepare a defence to the claim. The court had to decide whether to grant the adjournment and if the defendant’s lack of a defence to the order itself affected the adjournment decision.

The court considered the purpose of the adjournment provisions under the Act and whether granting an adjournment would serve the interests of justice. The court noted that the defendant had not provided a sufficient reason for the delay in filing a defence and had not shown how the adjournment would assist in preparing a defence. Additionally, the court highlighted that the application for an adjournment did not address the merits of the order itself. The court concluded that the defendant’s lack of a defence to the order was not a factor in determining the adjournment application. The court found that the application for an adjournment was unlikely to serve the interests of justice and dismissed the application.

The court emphasised that the primary purpose of the Act was to prevent the retention of criminal assets, and the proceedings under the Act were designed to be expeditious. The court observed that the defendant had ample time to prepare a defence but had failed to do so. The court further noted that the defendant's delay in filing a defence could potentially prejudice the commission. Ultimately, the court decided that granting the adjournment would not be in the interests of justice and dismissed the application for an adjournment. The court did not provide any orders regarding the proceeds assessment order itself, as the defendant had not contested the order.