D.P.P. (NSW) v. KING [2000] NSWSC 394

D.P.P. (NSW) v. KING [2000] NSWSC 394

The boat Resolution was not tainted property because the evidence established no more than that it was the place where the alleged offences occurred. It was not employed or utilised with the aim or purpose of committing or furthering the alleged offences, and the necessary nexus, proximity and degree between the...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 May 2000
Procedural Posture
Civil Application Concerning Confiscation of Property and a Restraining Order Under the Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime Act, 1989 / Defendant's Application to Discharge or Revoke Ex Parte Restraining and Related Orders Made on 14 March 2000
Outcome
Restraining order and other orders made on 14 March 2000 revoked; plaintiff ordered to pay defendant's reasonable costs as agreed or taxed.
Legal Topics
['restraining Orders' 'revocation of Restraining Orders' 'tainted Property' 'property Used in Connection With Commission of a Serious Offence' 'statutory Interpretation' 'costs']
['confiscation of Proceeds of Crime' 'criminal Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['restraining Orders' 'revocation of Restraining Orders' 'tainted Property' 'property Used in Connection With Commission of a Serious Offence' 'statutory Interpretation' 'costs']

Source-derived case record

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

Civil Application Concerning Confiscation of Property and a Restraining Order Under the Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime Act, 1989 / Defendant's Application to Discharge or Revoke Ex Parte Restraining and Related Orders Made on 14 March 2000

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the boat Resolution was tainted property because it was used in connection with the commission of the alleged serious offences within s.4 of the Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime Act, 1989.' 'Whether the mere fact that alleged offences occurred on the boat was sufficient to establish that the boat was used in connection with the commission of the offences.' 'Whether a first instance judge of the Supreme Court had power to revoke or set aside a restraining order made under s.43 of the Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime Act, 1989.']

Ratio Decidendi

The boat Resolution was not tainted property because the evidence established no more than that it was the place where the alleged offences occurred. It was not employed or utilised with the aim or purpose of committing or furthering the alleged offences, and the necessary nexus, proximity and degree between the commission of the alleged offences and the boat were not proved. The Court had power to revoke the restraining order under s.54 of the Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime Act, 1989 and under Part 40 Rule 9 of the Supreme Court Rules because the order had been made in the defendant's absence.

Court Disposition

Restraining order and other orders made on 14 March 2000 revoked; plaintiff ordered to pay defendant's reasonable costs as agreed or taxed.

Orders

  • ['The restraining order and the other orders made on 14 March 2000 be revoked.' "The plaintiff pay the defendant's reasonable costs as agreed or taxed."]