DPP v HATFIELD [2006] NSWSC 195

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : DPP v HATFIELD [2006] NSWSC 195 This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S) : 9 and 16 December 2005

JUDGMENT DATE : 28 March 2006

JUDGMENT OF : Hulme J at 1

DECISION : Question 1 – No. ; Question 2 – Does not arise.

Director of Public Prosecutions Shayne Desmond Fredrick HATFIELD PARTIES : Virginia Barbara BROUN Lindsay Maxwell RUTTER Denise RUTTER D & L SERVICES 7 PROMOTIONS PTY LTD

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 11823/05

COUNSEL : Crown: W Abraham QC; T Muir

SOLICITORS : Crown: Ms C Deakin Director of Public Prosecutions

- 19 - IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

HULME J Tuesday, 28 March 2006

11823/05 DPP v Shayne Desmond Fredrick HATFIELD, Virginia Barbara BROUN, Lindsay Maxwell RUTTER, Denise RUTTER, D & L SERVICES 7 PROMOTIONS PTY LTD JUDGMENT 1 HULME J: By Summons filed on 9 May 2005, the Director of Public Prosecutions, to whom I shall hereinafter refer as "the DPP", sought numerous orders under the Proceeds of Crime Act against the first four above-named Defendants and a number of other persons. Orders were made on that day including orders under Section 180 of the Act for the examination of those persons about the affairs (including the nature and location of any property) of the four Defendants. 2 On 9 June 2005 further orders were made for the examination of persons about the affairs (including the nature and location of any property) of the Defendants. 3 On various dates in May and June 2005, examinations were conducted before the Honourable DG Stewart in his capacity as an approved examiner. An electronic record was made of the proceedings and transcripts based on that record later produced. Some of the examinees produced documents. 4 During the course of the examinations, the examiner gave what are contended to be directions regarding the publication of the examination materials. What was said in this regard is set out in an annexure to the Notice of Motion which brought these proceedings before the Court and needs no repetition at this stage. 5 On 13 October 2005 the DPP had the matter listed before the examiner "in relation to the use of the examination materials" and on 26 October 2005, the examiner referred "the following questions of law… to the Court:- Question 1 Given the terms of the Act, can the DPP use the examination materials in the manner contemplated in the Guidelines and to enable him to fulfil his prosecutorial obligations?