NSW Caselaw
Reported Decision : (2001) 160 FLR 366
New South Wales Court of Appeal
CITATION : DPP v KINGSWELL [2001] NSWCA 91 FILE NUMBER(S) : CA 40343/98 HEARING DATE(S) : 20 November 2000 13 December 2000 JUDGMENT DATE : 10 April 2001
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS PARTIES : v RAYMOND JOSEPH KINGSWELL JUDGMENT OF : Priestley JA at 1; Meagher JA at 2; Handley JA at 3
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : Supreme Court - Common Law Division LOWER COURT CLD 11077/94 FILE NUMBER(S) : LOWER COURT Donovan AJ JUDICIAL OFFICER :
COUNSEL : D J Bugg QC/C A Webster for the Appellant W Hodgekiss as amicus curiae for the Respondent SOLICITORS : Commonwealth DPP Solicitor for the Appellant Peter Ash & Associates for the Respondent CATCHWORDS : CRIMINAL LAW - forfeiture of property - Proceeds of Crime Act 1987 (Cth), s 48 - power of Court to exclude existing interest from forfeiture does not authorise the creation of a new interest for that purpose Proceeds of Crime Act 1987 (Cth) LEGISLATION CITED : Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) The Crimes (Confiscation of Profits) Act 1985 (NSW) Proceeds of Crime Act 1991 (NZ) R v Galek (1993) 70 A Crim R 252 Manfred v Maddrell (1950) 51 SR (NSW) 95 CASES CITED: R v Bolger (1989) 16 NSWLR 115 R v Dunsmuir [1996] 2 NZLR 1 CA Lyall v Solicitor-General (1997) 2 NZLR 641 Woodcroft v DPP (2000) 174 ALR 60 DECISION : Leave to Appeal granted. Appeal allowed - orders made
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate