NSW Crime Commission v Mousselmani

The New South Wales Court of Appeal recently considered an application by the NSW Crime Commission for an extension of ex parte restraining orders against an individual, Mousselmani. The orders sought to prevent Mousselmani from engaging in conduct that might facilitate serious criminal activity. The original restraining orders were made in the context of Mousselmani’s association with organised crime figures and the potential for his involvement in activities such as drug trafficking. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining whether the evidence provided was sufficient to justify the extension of these orders.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the evidence presented by the NSW Crime Commission was adequate to support the continued application of ex parte restraining orders against Mousselmani. The Court had to weigh the potential threat posed by Mousselmani against the principles of procedural fairness and the right to a hearing. The Commission argued that the continuation of the orders was necessary to protect the public from serious criminal activity, while Mousselmani contended that the orders were unjustified and infringed on his rights.

The Court of Appeal found that the evidence provided by the NSW Crime Commission was sufficient to justify the extension of the ex parte restraining orders. The Court held that the potential risk posed by Mousselmani’s association with organised crime warranted the continued restrictions on his activities. The Court noted that the evidence demonstrated a pattern of conduct that warranted concern and that the orders were necessary to prevent serious criminal activity. The Court also found that the Commission had acted within its statutory powers and that the orders were proportionate to the risk identified.

The Court of Appeal extended the ex parte restraining orders against Mousselmani, allowing the NSW Crime Commission to continue to restrict his activities under the specified terms. The Court emphasised the importance of balancing public safety with individual rights and found that, in this case, the evidence supported the Commission’s application. The Court ordered that the restraining orders remain in place until further order of the Court.