Re Grima

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, Justice Mackenzie delivered judgment in the case of the Director of Public Prosecutions v Grima, Tindel and Kalanda Pastoral Company (Qld) Pty Ltd. The respondents, Anthony Emmanuel Grima and Darell Leslie Tindel, had pleaded guilty to carrying on the business of trafficking in cannabis sativa. Following their sentencing, the Director of Public Prosecutions sought forfeiture of specified real property and money found buried on Grima's property, and certain real property in Tindel's case. The Director also sought a pecuniary penalty order representing the difference between the total benefits derived from the commission of the offence and the value of the forfeited property.

The legal issues before the court included whether a discretion existed to decline to make a pecuniary penalty order, whether the value of benefits derived could be reduced by considering moneys subject to Maltese restraining orders, and whether joint and several pecuniary penalty orders should be made. The court found that no discretion existed to decline to make a pecuniary penalty order and that the value of benefits derived could not be reduced by considering the Maltese restraining orders. The court also determined that separate pecuniary penalty orders should be made for each respondent, rather than a joint and several order.

The court ordered that Grima's residential dwelling and land, valued at $300,000, and the sum of $6,800 found buried on the property be forfeited to the State of Queensland. The court also ordered that the property acquired by Kalanda Pastoral Company (Qld) Pty Ltd, valued at $680,000, be forfeited to the State of Queensland. Grima was ordered to pay a pecuniary penalty of $643,200, and Tindel was ordered to pay a pecuniary penalty of $270,000. These orders were based on the value of the benefits derived from the commission of the offence, less the value of the forfeited property.