R v Hall [2013] NSWCCA 47

R v Hall [2013] NSWCCA 47

On the balance of probabilities, the respondent derived a benefit from drug trafficking. Section 29(1) of the Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime Act 1989 imposes an obligation on the court to make an order reflecting the assessed benefit when sufficient information is available. The respondent's admissions enabled an assessment and an order should have been made for $18,990.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Decision on Appeal From District Court
Outcome
Appeal upheld
Legal Topics
['drug Proceeds Order' 'confiscation of Proceeds of Crime' 'statutory Interpretation']
['criminal Law'] ['drug Proceeds Order' 'confiscation of Proceeds of Crime' 'statutory Interpretation']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Decision on Appeal From District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether s 29 obliges the court to make a Drug Proceeds Order' 'Whether sufficient information was available to determine the benefit derived']

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities, the respondent derived a benefit from drug trafficking. Section 29(1) of the Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime Act 1989 imposes an obligation on the court to make an order reflecting the assessed benefit when sufficient information is available. The respondent's admissions enabled an assessment and an order should have been made for $18,990.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld

Orders

  • ['Order pursuant to s 29(1)(c) of the Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime Act 1989 that the respondent pay to the State of New South Wales the sum of $18,990.']