| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL LAW DIVISION
No. 00799 of 2011
IN THE MATTER of the Confiscation Act 1997
- and -
IN THE MATTER of the conviction of JUDITH MORAN
- and –
IN THE MATTER of the conviction of GEOFFREY LESLEY ARMOUR
- and –
IN THE MATTER of an application by THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS for Victoria
Between
| THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS FOR VICTORIA | Applicant |
| v | |
| JUDITH MARY-ANNE MORAN | First Respondent |
| and | |
| GEOFFREY LESLEY ARMOUR | Second Respondent |
| and | |
| ENVIRONMENTAL CONCRETE CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD | Third Respondent |
---
JUDGE: | LASRY J | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 28 July 2011 | |
DATE OF RULING: | 10 August 2011 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Re Moran, Armour and Environmental Concrete Constructions Pty Ltd | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2011] VSC 377 | |
---
CONFISCATION OF PROPERTY — Application for forfeiture of proceeds of sale of property — Application for forfeiture of getaway vehicle – Offence of murder – Whether property used in, or in connection with, the commission of the offence – Meaning of “in connection with” – Whether use of property incidental to offence – Confiscation Act 1997, s 32 – Application refused.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Applicant | Ms R Sofroniou | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Respondents | Mr J Saunders | Fong & Co. Solicitors |
HIS HONOUR:
On 20 January 2011, the second respondent to this application, Geoffrey Leslie Armour, pleaded guilty to murdering Desmond Moran on 15 June 2009. On 9 March 2011, the first respondent to this application, Judith Mary-Anne Moran, was found guilty by a jury of the same offence of murdering Desmond Moran on 15 June 2009. The third respondent is Environmental Concrete Constructions Pty Ltd, a company established by Judith Moran’s accountant and the registered owner of a Land Rover Discovery sought to be forfeited in this application. Pursuant to the Confiscation Act 1997 (‘the Act’), and by notices dated 17 May 2011 and 5 July 2011, the Victorian Director of Public Prosecutions has applied for a forfeiture order in respect of the following:
As against the respondent Moran, the property comprising the balance of the proceeds of sale of the property located at 10 Ormond Road, Ascot Vale, being the property more particularly described in Certificate of Title Volume 08007 Folio 145.
As against the respondent Armour, the grey coloured 2009 model Land Rover Discovery motor vehicle, registered number WZF-020.
The applications both rely on the fact that both respondents have been convicted of the offence of murder.
Pursuant to s 32 of the Act:
(1)If an accused is convicted of a schedule 1 offence, the DPP or an appropriate officer may apply to the Supreme Court or the court before which the accused was convicted of the offence for a forfeiture order in respect of tainted property.
Pursuant to Schedule 1 of the Act, it is sufficient that the offence of murder is an indictable offence against the law of Victoria.
The applications are supported by…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Re Moran, Armour and Environmental Concrete Constructions Pt... and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2011] VSC 377
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to interpret the phrase "in connection with" as it appears in section 32 of the Confiscation Act 1997. The court examined the nature of the offence and the role of the property in question. It concluded that the property was not used in the commission of the offence itself, but rather it was incidental to the offence. The court held that the property was not used in a way that could be considered as being directly connected to the commission of the offence, but rather it was a peripheral aspect of the criminal activity.
Based on its interpretation of the relevant statutory provision, the court found that the property was not used in connection with the commission of the offence. Consequently, the application for forfeiture was refused. The court ruled that the use of the property was too incidental to warrant the application of the forfeiture provisions under the Confiscation Act 1997. The final order was that the application for forfeiture was refused.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application refused.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.