Re Major Crime (Investigative Powers) Act 2004 No 5

[2006] VSC 410

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Unrestricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

M.C. (I.P.) of 2006 No. 5

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:	14 September 2006
DATE OF RULING:	14 September 2006
DATE OF REASONS:	2 November 2006
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Major Crime (Investigative Powers) Act 2004 No. 5
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2006] VSC 410

---

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 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 the large scale theft of cigarettes from a storage facility in an inner Melbourne suburb.  The value of the good stolen was in excess of $1 million.  More than forty people are named in the affidavit.  Some had minimal involvement.  Some others have been charged with, and convicted of, offences arising out of the theft.  Some others were charged but not convicted for lack of evidence.  The Detective Inspector attested to the reasons for, and the desirability of, having an examination by the Chief Examiner of several of the persons named in the affidavit.  The aim was to obtain information that might lead to the uncovering of further evidence that might be used to warrant the laying of further charges.

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. I make the same reservation as in Application No. 4.[1].  Because of 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 will make a restricted order.  I will require a further application to be made to this Court as to any particular witness or witnesses sought to be examined beyond the eight specifically named in the application for a coercive powers order.  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 be made “on the papers” to minimise delay.

   [1][2006] VSC 250

---