The Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police v Dickson (No 2)

[2013] NSWSC 749

Supreme Court

New South Wales

• Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation:	The Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police v Dickson & Ors (No 2) [2013] NSWSC 749
Hearing dates:	6 June 2013
Decision date:	06 June 2013
Jurisdiction:	Common Law
Before:	Beech-Jones J
Decision:	Temporary suppression order discharged; limited suppression order made.
Catchwords:	COURTS - Application made ex parte - closed Court - order facilitating transfer of funds - discharge of previous suppression order - more limited order made.
Legislation Cited:	- Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 - Proceeds of Crimes Act 2002 (Cth)
Cases Cited:	Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police v Dickson & Ors [2013] NSWSC 560
Category:	Interlocutory applications
Parties:	- The Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police (Plaintiff) - Anthony James Dickson (First Defendant) - Michael John Issakidis (Second Defendant) - Prima Ultima Pty Ltd (Third Defendant) - Dagmar Maxianova (Fourth Defendant) - Dampier Finance FX Strategies Limited (NZ company 2433038) (Fifth Defendant) - McFrolick Pty Ltd (Sixth Defendant) -Sydney City Prestige Wholesale Pty Ltd (Seventh Defendant) - Blue Velvet Fashion Pty Ltd (Eighth Defendant) - Donrecka Issakidis (Ninth Defendant) - Hilldon Pty Ltd (Tenth Defendant) - Bristol Wattle Properties Pty Ltd (Eleventh Defendant) - Dampier Finance FX Solutions Limited (NZ company 2433960) (Twelfth Defendant) - Jodaway Pty Ltd (Thirteenth Defendant) - Robin Thomas Ross Harper (Fourteenth Defendant) - Wee Sleekit Pty Ltd (Fifteenth Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: Ms E.A. Cheeseman SC, G. O'Mahoney (Plaintiff) Solicitors: Australian Federal Police (Plaintiff)
File Number(s):	2012/108692
Publication restriction:	Nil

EX TEMPORE Judgment

1. On 13 May 2013 I heard and determined an application by the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police for various orders designed, amongst other things, to facilitate the transfer of funds from accounts in the United Arab Emirates to Australia in circumstances where those funds were reasonably suspected of having the relevant connection to criminal activity (see Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police v Dickson & Ors [2013] NSWSC 560 ("Dickson No 1")).

1. The application was heard in closed Court and a temporary suppression order was made under s 10 of the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (the "Act") in respect of some of the evidence and submissions put to the Court in support of the application. I made orders which were generally in the form sought by the Commissioner. Part of those orders authorised the Commissioner to defer service of the orders, and the material filed in support of the application, pending the giving of effect to such of those orders that required the transfer of the funds and the obtaining of bank statements for the accounts from whence they came. This course of action is specifically contemplated by s 33(2) of the Proceeds of Crimes Act 2002 (Cth).

1. The proceedings were mentioned again on 16 May 2013 when the orders were varied. They were again listed for mention on 30 May 2013. Both of those mentions were conducted in a closed Court.

1. The proceedings were conducted in this manner because the material provided by the Commissioner suggested that there was a risk that the transfer of the funds and the process of verification involved in obtaining the bank statements might have been frustrated if notice of the application and the making of the orders was provided to the other parties. I addressed that matter in Dickson No 1 at [23] and [24].

1. Since that time the Court has been informed of the progress of the transfer of the funds and the obtaining of the statements. As at today, the position of the Commissioner is that he no longer seeks to prevent notice and publicity of this application being, as it were, suppressed. It appears that certainly some funds have been transferred and bank statements have been provided, although the Commissioner cannot verify at this point that all the orders have been effected. Equally, his position is he cannot submit to the Court that something is definitely left outstanding to be done.

1. In those circumstances, the justification for maintaining the secrecy surrounding the application and thus maintaining a blank suppression on its making and granting, no longer applies. Accordingly, I will make orders facilitating service of the application, the material in support of the making of the orders and the reasons for those orders upon the defendants as well as the lifting of all orders requiring the non-publication of the transcript.

1. Nevertheless, the Commissioner still seeks orders under s 7 of the Act in respect of a limited part of my judgment in Dickson No 1, and part of the transcript of the hearing on that day and of the mention on 30 May 2013.

1. In Dickson No 1, I addressed one of the orders sought by the Commissioner which sought the suppression of the publication, including to the defendants, of part of the materials relied on. It was necessary in giving my reasons for acceding to part of that aspect of the Commissioner's application for me to discuss the contents of that material in order to evaluate the Commissioner's application.

1. The material that is the subject of the Commissioner's present application under s 7 corresponds with a narrow class of the material that was addressed Dickson No 1 and, in particular, at [7] and [27] to [36]. For the reasons there given, I will make the orders now sought under s 7. In respect of the material that has been identified from that judgment and from the transcript of the hearings on 13 May and 30 May, I am satisfied that it is necessary to do so for each of the reasons specified in s 8(1)(a), (c) and (c) of the Act.

1. I accept that one problem with the giving of reasons in this judgment that refers to my judgment in Dickson No 1 is that part of that judgment will, itself, be the subject of an order under s 7. However, having considered the matter, I should state that it is simply not possible to give any further description of the reasons for the making of the order in a public forum without jeopardising the very interest that is sought to be protected by the application.

1. I should otherwise note that as at today's date the transcript of 16 May 2013 is not available, so that the orders I have made in respect of that day will continue and it will be necessary for the Commissioner to make a similar application in relation to it.

1. Accordingly, I will make order 1 in the short minutes of order. I will make order 2 in the short minutes of order. I will make order 3 in the short minutes of order but I will add at b(1), the orders of the Court on 16 May 2013 and at b(2), the further amended summons filed 24 May 2013. I will otherwise note that the orders made closing the Court on 13 May 2013 and 30 May 2013 are discharged to the extent that there is no restriction on access to the transcript of those occasions, save as provided for in order 2 made today.

**********

Amendments

27 August 2014 - Withdrawn from publication on 27.08.2014 by order of Beech-Jones J.

Amended paragraphs: Cover sheet - publication restriction

Decision last updated: 06 August 2018