New South Wales Crime Commission v Marreiros - [2025] NSWSC 778

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: New South Wales Crime Commission v Marreiros [2025] NSWSC 778
Hearing dates: 11 July 2025
Date of orders: 11 July 2025
Decision date: 11 July 2025
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Hamill J (as Duty Judge)
Decision:
Make orders 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, and 9 and decline to make orders 3, 4 and 5 in the plaintiff’s proposed orders.

Catchwords:
CIVIL LAW – restraining orders made – order for compulsory examination refused – accusatorial nature of criminal proceedings – where defendant not afforded to be heard

Legislation Cited:
Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW), Sch 3, ss 10A, 10B, 12(1)(b)(i), 12(1)(c)(i)

Cases Cited:
Lee v The Queen; Lee v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 455; [2014] HCA 20
X7 v Australian Crime Commission (2013) 248 CLR 92; [2013] HCA 29

Texts Cited:
N/A

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: New South Wales Crime Commission (ex parte)
File Number(s): 2025/00274211
Publication restriction: N/A

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

By summons filed in Court with leave this morning, the plaintiff ‑ which is the New South Wales Crime Commission ‑ seeks a number of orders under the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW). It seeks some of those orders urgently today, and, in particular, seeks a restraining order pursuant to s 10A over certain property nominated in the schedule, asserting that it was derived from criminal activity. I am using that term loosely, and not adopting the somewhat more precise language of the legislation.
The first matter that had to be dealt with was whether the Court should be closed, and whether the application should be dealt with ex parte. Because of the nature of the application, it is customary for pretty obvious reasons that the Court is to be closed. That obvious reason is that the objective of the orders sought is to restrain certain property said to be the proceeds of crime, again using the term loosely. Closing the Court and hearing the matter ex parte, thwarts any attempt by a defendant themselves or another person on their behalf from taking steps through which the property might be disposed of or shifted or moved. Accordingly, I acceded to the application to close the Court, and I have dealt with the matter ex parte.
The application, as I said, is brought by summons. It is supported by an affidavit of Mr Oliver, who is an “authorised officer” for the purposes of the legislation. The application complies with relevant statutory formalities and prerequisites, most if not all of which can be found in ss 10A and 10B of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act.
As to the substantive matters required to be established under s 10A(5), the affidavit includes by way of annexure a series of court attendance notices, along with alleged facts prepared by the New South Wales Police.
This establishes at least that the defendant has been charged with a series of offences, including supplying drugs, and offences in the nature…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading New South Wales Crime Commission v Marreiros

Details

AGLC: New South Wales Crime Commission v Marreiros [2025] NSWSC 778
Case: [2025] NSWSC 778
Decision Date: 11 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of New South Wales Crime Commission v Marreiros was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The Crime Commission sought an order for a compulsory examination of the defendant, Daniel Marreiros, under section 12 of the Crimes Act 1900. The commission aimed to obtain evidence from Marreiros that would assist in the investigation of serious organised crime. The application was made under the accusatorial nature of criminal proceedings, without the defendant being afforded the opportunity to be heard.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the commission was entitled to an order for compulsory examination of Marreiros, and if so, whether it was appropriate to grant such an order without the defendant being given the opportunity to be heard. The court had to consider the balance between the need for investigative powers and the protection of individual rights, particularly the right to be heard.

The court found that while the commission had a legitimate interest in investigating organised crime, the compulsory examination process could not proceed without first allowing the defendant an opportunity to be heard. The court emphasised the fundamental principle that the defendant must be given the chance to respond to the allegations and to challenge the basis for the compulsory examination. The court held that the commission's application for a compulsory examination order was refused due to the failure to afford Marreiros the right to be heard. The court's decision underscored the importance of due process and the protection of individual rights in criminal investigations.

Orders