NSW Caselaw
Reported Decision: 174 A Crim R 124
New South Wales Court of Appeal
CITATION: Hadjigeorgiou v New South Wales Crimes Commission [2007] NSWCA 197
HEARING DATE(S): 1 August 2007
JUDGMENT DATE: 29 August 2007
JUDGMENT OF: Giles JA at 1; Santow JA at 33; Basten JA at 47
DECISION: (By majority) (1) Extend time in which to apply for leave to appeal up to and including 3 May 2007; (2) Grant leave to appeal and direct the filing of the notice of appeal within seven days; (3) Dismiss the appeal with costs.
CATCHWORDS: Criminal Assets Recovery Act - restraining order - affidavit of reasonable suspicion of engaging in serious crime related activity and stating grounds on which suspicion is based - order made if judge satisfied are reasonable grounds for suspicion - three offences identified - assertion of suspicion - matters stated in affidavit not specifically related to offences - whether vitiating imprecision - whether were reasonable grounds for suspicion.
LEGISLATION CITED: Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990, s 10
Balog v Independent Commission against Corruption (1990) 169 CLR 625; Beneficial Finance Corporation v Commissioner of Australian Federal Police (1991) 31 FCR 523; Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336; Coal and Allied Operations Pty Ltd v Australian Industrial Relations Commission (2000) 203 CLR 194; Fardon v Attorney-General (Qld) (2004) 223 CLR 575; George v Rockett (1990) 170 CLR 104; Gifford v Strang Patrick Stevedoring Pty Ltd (2003) 214 CLR 269; Hilton v Wells (1985) 157 CLR 57; Housing Commission (NSW) v Tatmar Pastoral Co Pty Ltd [1983] 3 NSWLR 378; CASES CITED: Love v Attorney-General (NSW) (1990) 169 CLR 307; Malinka Hodings Pty Ltd v Stretton (2001) 204 CLR 290; New South Wales Crimes Commission v Ollis (2006) 65 NSWLR 478; Ousley v The Queen (1997) 192 CLR 69; Potter v Minahan (1908) 7 CLR 277; Public Service Board (NSW) v Osmond (1986) 159 CLR 656; Queensland Bacon Pty Ltd v Rees (1966) 115 CLR 266; Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 247; State of New South Wales v Corbett [2007] HCA 32. R v Ho and Szeto (1989) A Crim R 145;
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