NSW Crime Commission v Bloom

[2018] NSWSC 2013

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

NSW Crime Commission v Bloom [2018] NSWSC 2013

Hearing dates:

20 December 2018

Decision date:

20 December 2018

Jurisdiction:

Common Law

Before:

McCallum J

Decision:

1. Pursuant to section 10A of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 no person (other than any registered mortgagee dealing with its right to do so under the registered mortgage) is to dispose of, or attempt to dispose of, or otherwise deal with or attempt to otherwise deal with any interest in property (within the meaning of “interest in property” as defined in section 7 of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990) of Craig William Bloom, including the interest in property in the property specified in Schedule One and Schedule Two, but not including his interest in property in the property specified in Schedule Three hereto.

 

2. Pursuant to section 10B(2) of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 the New South Wales Trustee and Guardian take control of all the interest of Craig William Bloom in the property specified in Schedule One hereto.

 

3. Pursuant to section 12(1)(b)(i) of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 Craig William Bloom be examined on oath before a Registrar of the Court concerning his affairs, including the nature and location of any property in which he has an interest.

 

4. An order that leave be granted to the Plaintiff to obtain from the Registry dates for the examination sought in Prayer 3 above.

 

5. Pursuant to section 12(1)(c1) of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 Craig William Bloom furnish to the Plaintiff, within twenty one (21) days after service of a sealed copy of these orders on Craig William Bloom, a statement verified by oath of Craig William Bloom setting out the particulars sought in Schedule Four hereto.

 

5. Liberty is granted to the Plaintiff and Craig William Bloom to apply on three (3) days’ notice.

 

6. This matter be listed for directions before the Common Law Registrar at 9am on Monday 8 April 2019.

 

7. The costs of obtaining these orders be costs in the cause.

8. Pursuant to Rule 36.4(1)(a) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 these orders are to take effect as of the date hereof.

Catchwords:

PROCEEDS OF CRIME – application for restraining orders – ex parte application – requirement to make orders where conditions of statute satisfied

Legislation Cited:

Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW), s 10A
Crimes Act 1990 (NSW), s 93T(1A), 193B(2),
Drug (Misuse & Trafficking) Act 1985 (NSW), s 24(2A)

Category:

Procedural and other rulings

Parties:

NSW Crime Commission (plaintiff)
Craig William Bloom (defendant)

Representation:

Counsel:
S Vorreiter (solicitor for plaintiff)
No appearance by defendant

  Solicitors:
NSW Crime Commission (plaintiff)

File Number(s):

2018/392108

Publication restriction:

None

Judgment ex tempore – revised

1. HER HONOUR: Before the court is an application by the New South Wales Crime Commission for orders against Mr Craig Bloom including a restraining order in respect of Mr Bloom’s interests in certain property. The application is brought ex parte, as is commonly the case in applications of this kind by the Commission.

2. Section 10A of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW) allows the commission to apply ex parte for a restraining order. Section 10A(4) does confer power on the court to require the commission to give notice of the application to a person who has a sufficient interest in it. However, I am satisfied, for the reasons adverted to at paragraph 11 of the affidavit in support of the application, that it is neither necessary nor appropriate to require the Commission to give notice of this application to any person.

3. Section 10A(5) provides that the court must make a restraining order sought by the Commission if certain conditions are satisfied. I am satisfied that those conditions are met in the present case.

4. The first requirement is that the application be supported by an affidavit of an authorised officer. The present application is supported by an affidavit sworn by Jonathan Lee Spark on 19 December 2018. Mr Spark is an authorised officer for the purposes of the Act.

5. The affidavit must set out the authorised officer’s suspicion that the person whose interest is the subject of the application has engaged in a serious crime related activity and state the grounds on which that suspicion is based. Mr Spark deposes to his suspicion that the defendant, Mr Bloom, has engaged in the offence of knowingly participating in a criminal group (contrary to s 93T(1A) of the Crimes Act 1990 (NSW)), knowingly dealing with the proceeds of crime (contrary to s 193B(2) of that Act) and manufacturing a prohibited drug (methylamphetamine) exposing a child to the manufacturing process (contrary to s 24(2A) of the Drug (Misuse & Trafficking) Act 1985 (NSW)). Each of those offences is a serious criminal offence within the meaning of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act.

6. Mr Spark’s affidavit sets out the grounds for his suspicions which, in short, are that he has read the Statement of Facts prepared by police in respect of Mr Bloom’s arrest on 12 December 2018 and that he has seen an exchange of correspondence between another officer of the Commission and the author of the Statement of Facts indicating that document was prepared on the basis of information obtained by police as a result of the investigation which resulted in Mr Bloom’s arrest.

7. The Statement of Facts is a lengthy document setting out in detail the investigation of Mr Bloom and others, particularly in respect of the alleged manufacture of methylamphetamine. The element of the manufacture having been such as to expose children to the manufacturing process derives from the fact that, at the premises where it is alleged the drugs were made, a co-accused resided with his partner and their two children. The allegation of knowingly participating in a criminal group derives from the same observations during that investigation.

8. Finally, on 31 October 2018 police executed a search warrant which resulted in their seizing two sums of cash adding up to the amount identified in the schedule to the proposed restraining order, being a sum of $23,500.

9. Having read the Statement of Facts myself, I am satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for the suspicions deposed to by Mr Spark. It follows in accordance with the scheme of the Act that I must make the restraining order sought.

10. The Commission also seeks an order, in respect of the seized cash, that the New South Wales Trustee and Guardian take control of that property. The basis for seeking that order is that, if surrendered to the Trustee and Guardian, that sum will earn interest whereas if the cash sits in an exhibits room it will not. I am satisfied that it is appropriate to make an order in those terms.

11. The remaining orders sought in the form of order handed up by the Commission are in aid of the primary relief sought. I am satisfied that it is appropriate to make those orders.

12. I grant leave to the Commission to file in court the summons and affidavit of Jonathan Lee Spark sworn 19 December 2018 and the Statement of Facts and Circumstances. I make Orders 1 to 9 in the Form of Order handed up by the Commission.

**********

Decision last updated: 12 February 2019