Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: New South Wales Crime Commission v Barta [2021] NSWSC 285 Hearing dates: 17 March 2021 Date of orders: 17 March 2021 Decision date: 17 March 2021 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Hamill J (as Duty Judge) Decision: See paragraph [5]. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – criminal assets recovery – restraining orders – ex parte – orders made – no question of principle Legislation Cited: Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW), ss 10, 10A, 12 Category: Procedural rulings Parties: NSW Crime Commission (Plaintiff) Stefan Barta (Defendant) Representation: Solicitors: Crown Solicitors Office (Plaintiff) File Number(s): 2021/00075576 Publication restriction: Nil EX TEMPORE Judgment (REVISED) 1. This is an ex parte application for restraining orders under ss 10 and 10A of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW) (the Act). The application is brought by summons filed by the NSW Crime Commission (the Commission) in Court this morning. 2. It is supported by an affidavit of Katie Elaine Bourne and a statement of facts and circumstances. Ms Bourne's affidavit is relevant and admissible. It establishes the statutory prerequisites for the making of orders. In particular, the evidence establishes that Ms Bourne is an authorised officer of the plaintiff and that she suspects the defendant has engaged in serious crime related activity. That activity is, to put it generically, drug dealing. Ms Bourne also sets out the ground upon which she holds that suspicion, namely the information contained in a statement of facts relating to 11 pending charges of supplying a prohibited drug and some other charges. The fact sheet is annexed to Ms Bourne's affidavit and clearly provides a basis for her suspicion. It is unnecessary to recount the details. The affidavit along with the annexed fact sheet will remain with the Court file. 3. I am satisfied the restraining order should be made. 4. The Commission withdrew its application for ancillary orders under s 12 of the Act requiring the defendant to submit to a compulsory examination and to make disclosure of his financial circumstances when I queried why it was necessary to make such orders in the absence of the defendant or his legal representative. I take the view that a defendant has a right to be heard and there is no good reason why such orders should be made ex parte. 5. Accordingly, I make orders in accordance with orders 1, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the draft orders provided by the plaintiff. I also make an order that there be no publication of these orders until the Crime Commission has served the restraining orders on the defendant and any other relevant or interested party. ********** Amendments 07 April 2021 - Publication restriction removed. DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 07 April 2021