New South Wales Crime Commission v Ollis [2006] NSWCA 76

New South Wales Crime Commission v Ollis [2006] NSWCA 76

The Court held that s 12(1)(a) of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW) does not empower a single judge to vary restraining orders made under s 10 for the purpose of reconsidering whether there are reasonable grounds for the suspicion on which the orders were made, nor to avoid the statutory exclusion order procedure in s 25 where the substance of the application is that restrained interests are not illegally acquired property. The appropriate routes are appeal against the making of the restraining order or an exclusion order under s 25.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 April 2006
Procedural Posture
Separate Question Removed Into the Court of Appeal Concerning Powers to Vary Restraining Orders Made Under the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (nsw) / Court of Appeal Determination of Separate Question After Ex Parte Restraining Orders and Ancillary Orders Were Made in the Common Law Division
Outcome
Separate question answered no; balance of proceedings remitted to the Common Law Division; defendants ordered to pay the Commission's costs in the Court of Appeal.
Legal Topics
['restraining Orders' 'ancillary Orders' 'exclusion Orders' 'reasonable Suspicion' 'removal Into Court of Appeal']
['criminal Assets Recovery' 'statutory Interpretation' 'civil Procedure'] ['restraining Orders' 'ancillary Orders' 'exclusion Orders' 'reasonable Suspicion' 'removal Into Court of Appeal']

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

Separate Question Removed Into the Court of Appeal Concerning Powers to Vary Restraining Orders Made Under the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (nsw) / Court of Appeal Determination of Separate Question After Ex Parte Restraining Orders and Ancillary Orders Were Made in the Common Law Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether s 12(1)(a) of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW) permits a single judge to vary restraining orders made under s 10 so as to provide for a later hearing on the existence of reasonable suspicion.' 'Whether s 12(1)(a) permits deletion of interests in property from restraining orders otherwise than by an exclusion order under s 25.' 'Whether an application under s 12 for variation of a restraining order is confined to an application by the Commission.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that s 12(1)(a) of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW) does not empower a single judge to vary restraining orders made under s 10 for the purpose of reconsidering whether there are reasonable grounds for the suspicion on which the orders were made, nor to avoid the statutory exclusion order procedure in s 25 where the substance of the application is that restrained interests are not illegally acquired property. The appropriate routes are appeal against the making of the restraining order or an exclusion order under s 25.

Court Disposition

Separate question answered no; balance of proceedings remitted to the Common Law Division; defendants ordered to pay the Commission's costs in the Court of Appeal.

Orders

  • ["Answer 'no' to the question whether a single judge of the Court has power to make the variations and orders identified in paragraph 1 of the Commission's amended notice of motion." 'The balance of the proceedings remitted to the Common Law Division.' "Defendants pay the Commission's costs in this Court."]