New South Wales Crime Commission v Haule

[2013] NSWSC 934

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Case Title:	New South Wales Crime Commission v Haule
Medium Neutral Citation:	[2013] NSWSC 934
Hearing Date(s):	12 July 2013
Decision Date:	12 July 2013
Jurisdiction:	Common Law - Criminal
Before:	Schmidt J
Decision:	Consent orders made.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW - procedure - Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 - consent orders
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Category:	Interlocutory applications
Parties:	New South Wales Crime Commission (Plaintiff) Stephen Samehe Louka Haule (Defendant)
Representation
- Solicitors:	Solicitors: Ms R Katrib New South Wales Crime Commission (Plaintiff) Mr S Fung (Defendant)
File Number(s):	2013/20616
Publication Restriction:	None

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

1. By summons filed in January 2013 the New South Wales Crime Commission sought orders against the defendant under the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990. The application was supported by an affidavit sworn by Mr Spark, the Commission's Director (Financial Investigations).

2. Mr Spark there deposed to the basis of his suspicion that the defendant, Mr Haule, had been engaged in crime related activities, namely the supply of prohibited drugs, cocaine and cannabis, contrary to sub-ss 25(1) and (2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. That suspicion rested in part on a police facts sheet, which disclosed the circumstances in which the defendant came to be arrested, while in possession of those and other drugs and was charged with those offences.

3. On 21 January 2013 restraining orders were made by McDougall J under s 10A of the Act as to the defendant's interest in certain property identified in a schedule to the order, as well as under s 12 as to his examination.

4. Today the parties ask the Court to make orders varying the orders earlier made, in terms agreed in relation to funds held in an identified bank account.

5. In the circumstances disclosed in Mr Spark's affidavit, I am satisfied that the parties' agreement should be given effect and that orders made in the terms which their solicitors have executed. I order accordingly.

   **********