Re Major Crime (Investigative Powers) Act 2004 No 4

[2006] VSC 250

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Unrestricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

M.C. (I.P.) 2006 No. 4

IN THE MATTER of the Major Crime (Investigative Powers) Act 2004

and

IN THE MATTER of an application for a coercive powers order

---

JUDGE:	TEAGUE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	7 April 2006
DATE OF RULING:	7 April 2006
DATE OF REASONS:	6 July 2006
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Major Crime (Investigative Powers) Act 2004 No. 4
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2006] VSC 250

---

Criminal Law – Ruling - Major Crime (Investigative Powers)Act 2004 – application for a coercive powers order – application granted

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Ms J. Pavlou	Office of the Chief Examiner – Victoria Police

HIS HONOUR:

1. An application has been made to me for a coercive powers order under Part 2 of the Major Crime (Investigative Powers)Act 2004 (“the Act”). The application was supported by an affidavit sworn on 7 April 2006 by a Detective Inspector attached to the Office of the Chief Examiner.

1. In that affidavit, details were provided of an investigation by the police into what was described as the large scale cultivation and trafficking of cannabis primarily in the western suburbs of Melbourne.  Named in the affidavit are more than 10 persons.  The addresses of most of them are in what can be broadly defined as the Bacchus Marsh  and Melton areas.  Several of them had criminal histories relating to the trafficking of cannabis.

1. From a time early in 2005, investigators were provided with information, including by a registered informer and from other sources, as to the activities of certain of the persons in the cultivation and trafficking of cannabis.  Call charge records were checked as to a large number of telephone calls made by certain of the persons in early 2005.  From July 2005, monitoring of telephone services was carried out.  That resulted in the investigators hearing what could be treated as coded references to cannabis. 

1. The investigations continued until November 2005, when search warrants were executed at a number of the addresses of, or linked with, the persons in the Bacchus Marsh and Melton areas.  At one address, over 200 small cannabis plants were growing hydroponically.  At another, dried cannabis and amphetamine were located.  At another, there was found a quantity of dried cannabis.  At another, there was found over 600 cannabis plants, plus some dried cannabis and much hydroponic equipment.  At another, there was found over 30 cannabis plants plus hydroponic equipment and a firearm.  At another, there was found 14 plants growing hydroponically, four firearms and amounts of ammunition.  Various of the persons were charged at that time.  Early in 2006, further investigations led to further search warrants being executed and further charges being laid.

1. The Detective Inspector attested to the desirability of having examination by the Chief Examiner of at least one of the persons. He also deposed to his belief that the cultivation and trafficking in cannabis as described in his affidavit constituted one or more organised crime offence as defined by the Act.

1. I am satisfied that the criteria prescribed in s.3 of the Act, as to what is required for an “organised crime offence” are met. I am likewise satisfied that the criteria prescribed in s.5(3) and (4) of the Act, as to the form of the application and the matters to be demonstrated in support of the application, have been met. I am accordingly prepared to make an order in the terms contemplated by the Act. However, given the broad nature of the activities disclosed in the affidavit, and the number of persons involved, and my obligation under s.8 (b)(ii) to have regard to the impact of the use of coercive powers on the rights of members of the community, I have concluded that I should not made a “broad” order, but a restricted one. In short, I require a further application to be made to this Court as to any particular witness or witnesses sought to be examined. Provided that a further short affidavit is filed with the Court justifying the examination of any further witness, which affidavit can be read in conjunction with the affidavit of the Chief Inspector, an order could even be made “on the papers” to minimise delay.