New South Wales Crime Commission v Jamie Dunn [2017] NSWSC 97

Procedural Posture

Application for Restraining Orders Under the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (nsw) Pending Forfeiture and Unexplained Wealth Orders / Ex Parte Procedural Ruling and Orders

Legal Issues

1. 1 ['Whether the application was supported by an affidavit of an authorised officer stating a suspicion that the defendants had engaged in serious crime related activity and the grounds for that suspicion.' 'Whether there were reasonable grounds for the suspicion that the defendants had engaged in serious crime related activity.' 'Whether the restraining orders should be made without prior notice to the defendants.' 'Whether ancillary orders for control of property, examination on oath and verified statements should be made.']

Ratio Decidendi

The restraining and ancillary orders were made because the authorised officer’s affidavit, police fact sheets and property searches provided reasonable grounds for the suspicion that Jamie Bryan Dunn and Bruce Alexander Dunn had engaged in serious crime related activity and held interests in the identified property, and because the risk of rapid disposal or dealings justified making the orders without prior notice.

Court Disposition

Restraining orders and ancillary orders made; matter stood over for directions.

Orders

• ['Pursuant to section 10A of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 no person, other than any registered mortgagee dealing with its right to do so under the registered mortgage, is to dispose of, attempt to dispose of, otherwise deal with or attempt to otherwise deal with any interest in property of Jamie Bryan Dunn,...