Re Moran, Armour and Environmental Concrete Constructions Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 22 min read
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:

  1. 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.

  1. The applications both rely on the fact that both respondents have been convicted of the offence of murder.

  1. 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.

  1. Pursuant to Schedule 1 of the Act, it is sufficient that the offence of murder is an indictable offence against the law of Victoria.

  1. The applications are supported by…

CaseChat AU logo

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
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2011] VSC 377
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Moran, Armour and Environmental Concrete Constructions Pty Ltd involved an application for the forfeiture of proceeds from the sale of property and a getaway vehicle under the Confiscation Act 1997. The application arose from an offence of murder committed by one of the parties, Moran. The primary legal issues before the court were whether the property in question was used in or in connection with the commission of the offence, and if the use of the property was incidental to the offence.

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.