New South Wales Crime Commission v Vo
[2017] NSWSC 1370
•19 September 2017
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: New South Wales Crime Commission v Vo [2017] NSWSC 1370 Hearing dates: 19 September 2017 Decision date: 19 September 2017 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: McCallum J Decision: Restraining orders made
Catchwords: PROCEEDS OF CRIME – application for restraining orders – no question of principle Legislation Cited: Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW),
ss 10A(4)–(5)Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: New South Wales Crime Commission (plaintiff)
Tommy Dang Vo (defendant)Representation: S Santhikumar (solicitor for the plaintiff) (ex parte)
Solicitors:
New South Wales Crime Commission (plaintiff)
File Number(s): 2017/284466 Publication restriction: None
Judgment
-
HER HONOUR: This is an application brought by the New South Wales Crime Commission for a restraining order pursuant to s 10A of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW). The Act makes provision for the Commission to make such an application ex parte. Section 10A(4) of the Act` provides that, despite the fact of an application being brought ex parte, the Court may, if it thinks fit, require the Commission to give notice of the application to a person the Court believes has a sufficient interest in it.
-
The present application is supported by an affidavit sworn by Mr Jonathan Spark in which he specifically addresses that issue. He contends, based on his lengthy experience as an employee of the Commission and having regard to the serious nature of the activity in which the defendant is allegedly involved, that notice should not be required to be given in the present case. I am satisfied on the strength of Mr Spark's evidence that it is neither necessary nor appropriate to require the Commission to give notice of the application.
-
The application is supported by the affidavit of Mr Spark to which I have referred. The scheme of the legislation is such that the Court must make the restraining order sought if that affidavit establishes certain matters listed in s 10A(5) of the Act. Mr Spark's affidavit satisfies those requirements. In particular, it deposes to Mr Spark's suspicion that the defendant has engaged in serious crime related activity or activities, namely, the supply of a commercial quantity of methamphetamine.
-
The affidavit also states the grounds on which Mr Spark's suspicion is based, namely, that he has had direct communication by email with the author of a statement of facts prepared in support of the charge. Finally, it is a requirement of the section that the Court consider having regard to the matters contained in the affidavit that there are reasonable grounds for the suspicion.
-
I have read the statement of facts to which Mr Spark had regard in preparing his affidavit. They present a relatively straightforward case against the defendant for involvement in the offences with which he now stands charged, based on his having been approached by police in his car at a well-known drug location in Auburn.
-
I am satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for Mr Spark's suspicion based on the contents of that fact sheet. It follows in accordance with the scheme of the legislation that I must make the restraining order sought. The application also seeks ancillary relief of the kind frequently sought in applications of this kind and I am satisfied that it is appropriate to make those orders for the advancement of the proceedings.
-
For those reasons, I make orders one to eight in the orders provided by the Commission.
**********
Decision last updated: 13 October 2017
0
0
2