Director of Public Prosecutions v Afram [2022] NSWSC 1133

Director of Public Prosecutions v Afram [2022] NSWSC 1133

The delay in filing was due to a procedural mistake and adequately explained; the defendant was put on sufficient notice of the application; and, as the interests of justice favour allowing the application to proceed, leave is granted under s 13(3).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 August 2022
Procedural Posture
Confiscation Application / Application for Extension of Time to File Summons for Confiscation Order
Outcome
Leave granted to file summons out of time; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['confiscation Orders' 'extension of Time' 'interests of Justice' 'procedural Error']

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

Confiscation Application / Application for Extension of Time to File Summons for Confiscation Order

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to file a summons for a Confiscation Order outside the statutory six-month period under s 13(3) of the Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime Act 1989 (NSW)' 'Whether the delay in filing was satisfactorily explained' 'Whether it is in the interests of justice to grant leave']

Ratio Decidendi

The delay in filing was due to a procedural mistake and adequately explained; the defendant was put on sufficient notice of the application; and, as the interests of justice favour allowing the application to proceed, leave is granted under s 13(3).

Court Disposition

Leave granted to file summons out of time; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to the plaintiff pursuant to s 13(3) of the Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime Act 1989 (NSW) to file a summons for a Confiscation Order outside the six-month time limit.' 'No order as to costs.']