R v David Peter Cain (No.2) [2001] NSWSC 117

R v David Peter Cain (No.2) [2001] NSWSC 117

The applicant's interest in 52 Brighton Street was not available as bail security because of orders made under the Proceeds of Crime Act 1987, but, excluding that interest, there remained a suitably secured sum substantially in excess of $1 million available to support the proposed bail conditions, so conditional bail should still be granted with the Brighton Street item deleted.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 March 2001
Procedural Posture
Criminal Bail Application / Application for Bail; Reconsideration After Suspension of Earlier Order
Outcome
Bail conditions varied as stated.
Legal Topics
['bail' 'proceeds of Crime Act 1987' 'security for Bail Conditions']

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 Bail Application / Application for Bail; Reconsideration After Suspension of Earlier Order

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant's interest in 52 Brighton Street, Banksmeadow was available to be pledged as security for performance of bail conditions in light of orders made under the Proceeds of Crime Act 1987." "Whether conditional bail should still be granted without regard to the applicant's interest in the Brighton Street property."]

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's interest in 52 Brighton Street was not available as bail security because of orders made under the Proceeds of Crime Act 1987, but, excluding that interest, there remained a suitably secured sum substantially in excess of $1 million available to support the proposed bail conditions, so conditional bail should still be granted with the Brighton Street item deleted.

Court Disposition

Bail conditions varied as stated.

Orders

  • ['Conditional bail granted by restating the previous order.' 'Paragraph 1(f) of the previous order was varied by deleting the item relating to the appellant, including the figure of one hundred and fifty thousand dollars and the reference to the Brighton Street property.']