NSW Crime Commission v Field - [2008] NSWSC 103

CITATION: NSW Crime Commission v Field [2008] NSWSC 103

HEARING DATE(S): 4.12.06, 6.12.07, 7.12.06, 4.1.07, 4.5.07, 22.6.07, 23.7.07, 8.10.07, 12.11.07, 13.2.08

JUDGMENT DATE :
13 February 2008

JURISDICTION: Common Law

JUDGMENT OF: Adams J at 1

DECISION: A fixed term of four years and six months commencing 16 December 2005 and ending on 15 June 2010 is imposed upon which date the offender will be eligible to be considered for parole in respect of the sentence of thirteen years he is serving for the drug offence which expires on 4 January 2014.

CATCHWORDS: Contempt of court - sentence - refusal to be examined in confiscation proceedings - relevant principles.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 s 12(1)

CASES CITED: Principal Registrar of Supreme Court of NSW v Jando (2001) 53 NSWLR 527
Principal Registrar of Supreme Court of NSW v Tran [2006] NSWSC 1183
R v Bilal Razzak [2006] NSWSC 1366
Registrar of the Court of Appeal v Gilby (unreported NSWCA, 20 August 1991)

PARTIES: NSW Crime Commission
Malcolm Gordon FIELD

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 11852/01

COUNSEL: Mr I D Temby QC (Plaintiff)
Defendant in person

SOLICITORS: NSW Crime Commission (Plaintiff)
Defendant unrepresented

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

ADAMS J

Wednesday 13 February 2008

11852/01 NSW CRIME COMMISSION v FIELD

JUDGMENT ON SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: On 29 May 2003 the offender was sentenced to a term of twelve months’ imprisonment for contempt of this Court. That sentence commenced on 5 June 2007 and will expire on 4 June 2008. The contempt comprised a refusal to comply with an order of this Court on 4 July 2001 that he be examined on oath before a Registrar under s12(1) of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990. The facts concerning the contempt are sufficiently set out in the judgment of Bell J delivered by her Honour when the offender was sentenced. I do not need to set out those facts in detail in this judgment but a brief reference to them is necessary.

2 The offender had been arrested on 5 January 2001 upon charges arising out of the importation into Australia of approximately 34 kilograms of ecstasy. On 10 January 2001 the Commission obtained a restraining order in respect of his property. On 27 March 2001 the proceedings were settled and consent terms filed. Other confiscation proceedings commenced on 4 July 2001 concerning the property of the offender and a number of other persons. On 4 July 2001 Simpson J made an order in the requiring the offender to attend before a Registrar of this Court on 13 August 2001 for an examination on oath as to his property and that of the other persons in respect of whom restraining orders had been made. When the offender appeared for his examination on that day he indicated that he would refuse to answer any questions upon the ground that the hearing of the criminal charges against him was pending, although…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read NSW Crime Commission v Field and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2008] NSWSC 103
Decision Date: 13 February 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the NSW Crime Commission v Field, the case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The NSW Crime Commission sought to have Michael Field, a prominent figure in organised crime, sentenced for contempt of court due to his refusal to be examined in confiscation proceedings. These proceedings were initiated under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, aiming to confiscate assets derived from criminal activities. Field's refusal to answer questions was seen as an obstruction of justice and a direct challenge to the authority of the court.

The legal issues before the court encompassed the scope of the court's contempt powers and the criteria for sentencing in such matters. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the contempt was of a civil or criminal nature and the appropriate sentence to be imposed. The court also had to consider whether there were any mitigating factors that could reduce the severity of the sentence. The principles guiding the contempt of court and the sentencing process were critically examined to ensure that the sentence was just and proportionate to the offence.

The court concluded that Field's conduct amounted to criminal contempt, as it directly interfered with the administration of justice. In assessing the appropriate sentence, the court considered the seriousness of the contempt, the need to uphold the integrity of the legal process, and the potential deterrence effect on others. The court found that Field's refusal to cooperate was deliberate and had significant implications for the proceedings. Consequently, the court imposed a sentence of imprisonment, reflecting the gravity of the offence and the necessity to protect the judicial process.

Orders