Greig v Irmak [2018] NSWSC 1058

Greig v Irmak [2018] NSWSC 1058

Given the established history of drug supply at the premises, regular attendance by reputed criminals, absence of genuine occupation, and fortified condition, the statutory grounds in s 3(1) of the Restricted Premises Act 1943 (NSW) are satisfied, warranting declarations that the premises are subject to Part 2 of the Act predominantly because reputed criminals have attended or are likely to attend.

Parties
Plaintiff: Sergeant Leah Christine Greig; Defendant: Ali Irmak
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Declaration Under Statute / Hearing and Judgment
Outcome
Declarations made; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Restricted Premises, Declarations Under Restricted Premises Act, Reputed Criminal Declarations
Criminal Law Statutory Interpretation Restricted Premises Declarations Under Restricted Premises Act Reputed Criminal Declarations

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sergeant Leah Christine Greig

Plaintiff

Ali Irmak

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Declaration Under Statute / Hearing and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the premises at 7/31–33 Harrow Road Auburn are premises to which Part 2 of the Restricted Premises Act 1943 (NSW) applies
  2. 2 Whether reputed criminals have attended or are likely to attend the premises as a reason for such declaration

Ratio Decidendi

Given the established history of drug supply at the premises, regular attendance by reputed criminals, absence of genuine occupation, and fortified condition, the statutory grounds in s 3(1) of the Restricted Premises Act 1943 (NSW) are satisfied, warranting declarations that the premises are subject to Part 2 of the Act predominantly because reputed criminals have attended or are likely to attend.

Court Disposition

Declarations made; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The premises at 7/31–33 Harrow Road Auburn are premises to which Part 2 of the Restricted Premises Act 1943 (NSW) applies.
  • The predominant reason for the declaration is that reputed criminals have attended or are likely to attend the premises.