New South Wales Crime Commission v Redshaw
[2017] NSWSC 444
•20 April 2017
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: New South Wales Crime Commission v Redshaw [2017] NSWSC 444 Hearing dates: On the papers Date of orders: 20 April 2017 Decision date: 20 April 2017 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Schmidt J Decision: Orders in terms sought made.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - procedure - restraining orders sought - ex-parte - orders made Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW)
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: New South Wales Crime Commission (Plaintiff)
David John Redshaw (Defendant)Representation: Solicitors:
A Bishop, New South Wales Crime Commission (Plaintiff)
File Number(s): 2017/118119 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
-
By summons which I granted leave to file, the New South Wales Crime Commission applied ex-parte, seeking restraining orders under s 10A of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act1990 (NSW) in relation to the interest in certain property of the defendant, David John Redshaw. Other orders under ss 12(1), 10B, 22, 22AA and 28A of the Act were also sought. The orders pressed were for restraining orders under s 10A, as well as orders under ss 10B and 12(1).
-
The application was supported by an affidavit sworn on 18 April 2017 by Katie Elaine Bourne, the Commission’s Director, Assessments and an authorised officer under the Act, as well as by a statement of facts and circumstances provided in accordance with rule 1.26 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW).
-
For the reasons which follow, I am satisfied that the orders sought should be made.
-
The property sought to be restrained is identified in a schedule to the summons as real property located at Moorebank and Townsville registered in the name of Mr Redshaw and Alicia Ann Jenkins as joint tenants; as well as vehicles registered in Mr Redshaw’s name; funds held in Commonwealth Bank accounts in his name; and cash of some $43,950 seized on the execution of a search warrant at the Moorebank address.
-
Ms Bourne deposed that she suspected that Mr Redshaw had engaged in serious crime related activity within the definition of a “serious crime related activity” in s 6 of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act, namely, supplying prohibited drugs contrary to s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act1985 (NSW) and knowingly dealing with the proceeds of crime contrary to s 193B of the Crimes Act1900 (NSW).
-
Ms Bourne there also gave a detailed explanation of the basis upon which she came to hold that suspicion. That rested on a consideration of documents obtained by employees of the Commission, including a Facts Sheet created by Detective Turnbull; questions which Ms Bourne posed to the detective and responses which he gave; as well as searches conducted of the records held in the COPS database, which showed that on 23 March 2017, Mr Redshaw had been charged with the offence specified in the Facts Sheet, which was annexed to the affidavit.
-
Ms Bourne also had regard to information obtained as the result of searches conducted of the LPI, Veda, DERM and, RMS databases in relation to the property of Mr Redshaw.
-
Ms Bourne deposed to her experience that in the absence of a restraining order, it is possible for people to attempt to enter into unregistered mortgages in relation to real estate very quickly and to dispose of motor vehicles or backdate forms notifying the RMS of disposal of such vehicles, in order to defeat the operation of the Act.
-
She also deposed to her view that, given the serious nature of the criminal activity in which Mr Redshaw is apparently involved, that notice should not be given of this application. That is a course available under the Act, although s 10A(4) permits a different course to be taken, if the Court thinks fit.
-
Section 10A(5) requires the making of the orders sought under the Act, if the Court considers that there are reasonable grounds for the suspicions to which Ms Bourne has deposed.
-
In this case, I am satisfied that the material relied on well establishes that there are reasonable grounds for the suspicions to which Ms Bourne has deposed and that the requirements of s 10A(5) of the Act have been addressed. In that situation, the Act requires that the orders sought in relation to the property in question be made.
-
In the circumstances, I have concluded that it was also appropriate to make the other orders sought.
-
I have reached those conclusions after consideration of the material relied on, including what was disclosed in the Facts Sheet, as to which Ms Bourne deposed that she believed in the truth of its contents.
-
That document revealed that Mr Redshaw, a former police officer, was arrested and charged following a strike force investigation into a money laundering operation during which, after the execution of various warrants, he was identified to be a member of an organised crime group. Electronic and physical surveillance had also revealed that the group and Mr Renshaw were involved in the laundering of large quantities of Australian currency, derived through the supply of cocaine, as well as also dealing with cocaine.
-
All of these matters, I am satisfied, provide a proper basis for the making of the orders sought.
-
On the evidence, I am also satisfied that the Commission ought not to be required to give notice of this application to Mr Redshaw and that it should be dealt with ex-parte. In coming to that view, I had regard to the provisions of s 10C of the Act, which permits an affected person to apply to have a restraining order set aside, as well as the liberty granted in the order to the parties to apply to the Court on three days’ notice.
Orders
-
Accordingly, I make orders in the terms sought, as well as ordering that the Commission serve a copy of this judgment on Mr Redshaw and Ms Jenkins.
**********
Decision last updated: 26 April 2017
0
0
4