New South Wales Crime Commission v O'Connor

[2008] NSWSC 1301

CITATION:	New South Wales Crime Commission v O'Connor [2008] NSWSC 1301
HEARING DATE(S):	31 October 2008
JUDGMENT DATE :	28 November 2008
JUDGMENT OF:	Harrison J
DECISION:	Orders pursuant to s 10 Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL ASSETS CONFISCATION - s 10 of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 invests in the Supreme Court the power to issue an order that no person is to dispose of or attempt to dispose of, or to otherwise deal with or attempt to otherwise deal with, an interest in property to which the order applies except in such manner or in such circumstances as are specified in the order – order made – reasons for decision
LEGISLATION CITED:	Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1995
CATEGORY:	Principal judgment
PARTIES:	New South Wales Crime Commission (Plaintiff) Todd Anthony O'Connor (Defendant)
FILE NUMBER(S):	SC 15763 of 2008
COUNSEL:	P Singleton (Plaintiff)
SOLICITORS:	J M Giorgiutti, Solicitor for New South Wales Crime Commission (Plaintiff)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

HARRISON J

28 November 2008

25763 of 2008 New South Wales Crime Commission v Todd Anthony O'Connor

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: These proceedings were originally commenced by summons filed in this court on 31 October 2008. On that day the proceedings came before me in my capacity as duty judge with the plaintiff seeking certain orders pursuant to s 10 of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990. The plaintiff is the New South Wales Crime Commission. Todd Anthony O'Connor is the sole defendant. The terms of the orders Sought were that no person is to dispose of or attempt to dispose of or otherwise deal with or attempt to otherwise deal with the interest in property of the defendant, which property is described in a schedule with which I was provided. A further order was sought pursuant to section 10.4 of the Act that the Public Trustee take control of the defendant's interest in the whole of the property so described. The property in question referred to in the schedule to the order is described as $635,100 seized by police during the execution of a warrant at certain premises in St John Crescent, Woolloomooloo on 6 October 2008.

2 In support of the application in the summons for those and other orders, the plaintiff relied upon an affidavit of Jonathon Lee Spark sworn on 30 October 2008. Mr Spark is a certified practising accountant employed by the plaintiff as Assistant Director of Financial Investigation and was appropriately, on the face of the affidavit, said to be authorised by the plaintiff generally to act as such for the purposes of section 10 or Part 4 of the Act. Mr Spark deposed to a suspicion that Eamad Sada had engaged in a serious crime related activity or activities, namely a conspiracy to supply prohibited drugs contrary to a provision of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985. The suspicion held by Mr Spark was based on a number of matters to which he then deposed in his affidavit. Those matters include reference by him to the contents of a 28 page fact sheet prepared by a member of the Australian Federal Police and forwarded to the plaintiff, a search of the records of the New South Wales Police COPS system and to other information described in some short detail provided to the plaintiff by a registered informant. Part of that information included an allegation that Mr Sada and the defendant were involved in the manufacture and supply of prohibited drugs and that the property that was the subject of the application may have been the product of that activity or some of it. Mr Spark specifically deposed to a belief that the defendant had an interest in that property. He set out in his affidavit the basis for that belief in terms to which it is presently unnecessary in detail to refer.

3 I have read the whole of Mr Spark's affidavit and the documents that are annexed to it. In my opinion in all of the circumstances of the case Mr Spark had reasonable grounds for the suspicion that he formed and to which he deposed in the affidavit to which I have referred. It was upon the basis of Mr Spark's affidavit and my view that he had reasonable grounds for having formed the suspicion to which he deposed that I made the orders sought by the plaintiff on 31 October 2008.

**********