Shields & Ors v New South Wales Crime Commission (No 2)

The applicants, Shields and others, appealed to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales against orders made by Rothman J concerning an assets forfeiture order and a restraining order sought by the New South Wales Crime Commission. The dispute centred on whether the preconditions for these orders had been met, and also involved an application for adjournment pending a separate appeal.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the Crime Commission had satisfied the statutory requirement that it was more probable than not that a person engaged in serious crime-related activity within six years of the application for the forfeiture order. Additionally, the court considered whether the interest in the property subject to the restraining order was sufficiently specified, and whether the trial judge had erred in refusing an adjournment of the proceedings pending an application for leave to appeal.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the preconditions for the assets forfeiture order had not been satisfied. The court reasoned that the evidence presented by the Crime Commission did not establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the relevant person had engaged in serious crime-related activity within the specified timeframe. Consequently, the court set aside the orders made by Rothman J and dismissed the Notice of Motion for summary judgment. The respondent, the New South Wales Crime Commission, was ordered to pay the claimants'/appellants' costs.