R v David Peter Cain (No.2)

[2001] NSWSC 117

CITATION:	R v David Peter Cain (No.2) [2001] NSWSC 117
FILE NUMBER(S):	SC 071244/01
HEARING DATE(S):	28 February 2001 1 March 2001
JUDGMENT DATE:	1 March 2001
PARTIES :	Regina David Peter Cain
JUDGMENT OF:	Sperling J at 1

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION :	Local Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) :	H8272079
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER :

COUNSEL :	Ash for the Applicant
SOLICITORS:	Devine for the Applicant Plibersek for the DPP (Cth)
CATCHWORDS:	Criminal Law - Bail - Proceeds of Crime Act 1987 - acceptable security
LEGISLATION CITED:	Proceeds of Crime Act 1987
DECISION:	Bail conditions varied as stated.

- 1 -

THE SUPREME COURT

OF NEW SOUTH WALES

COMMON LAW DIVISION

SPERLING J

THURSDAY 01 MARCH 2001

71244/01 - REGINA v DAVID PETER CAIN

(VIDEO LINK TO METROPOLITAN REMAND CENTRE)

JUDGMENT No. 2- On application for bail

1 HIS HONOUR: My reason for suspending the order which I made earlier today was that I was informed by the Crown that an order had been made pursuant to the Proceeds of Crime Act 1987 in relation to the applicant’s interest in the property 52 Brighton Street, Banksmeadow, and that a further order might have been made affecting, in a relevant way, the premises at 243 Pyrmont Street, Pyrmont. The relevant orders of this court made under the statute have now been produced. It is apparent that the applicant’s interest in the property at 52 Brighton Street is not available to be pledged as security for performance of the conditions of the order which I proposed. That appears to be the whole of the relevant effect of the orders made under the statute.

2    I should add that counsel for the applicant did not, in his submissions to me, propose that the applicant’s interest in the Brighton Street property should be made available for the purpose of the bail application. That was something that I introduced of my own initiative, being unaware of the orders which had been made under the Proceeds of Crime legislation.

3    It is necessary, therefore, to reconsider the application without regard to the applicant’s interest in the Brighton Street property. Putting that interest out of the account, there remains a sum substantially in excess of $1 million, suitably secured, available to support the conditions which I proposed for an order that bail be granted. That being so, I remain of the view that conditional bail should be granted, and I re-state my previous order, with the exception that there will be deleted from paragraph 1 (f) the item relating to the appellant, including the figure of one hundred and fifty thousand dollars and the reference to the Brighton Street property. I have crossed out that item in the minute of my order.

oOo

Last Modified: 03/07/2001