New South Wales Crime Commission v Jason Lee [2011] NSWSC 854

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: New South Wales Crime Commission v Jason Lee [2011] NSWSC 854 Hearing dates: 01/08/2011, 03/08/2011 Decision date: 10 August 2011 Before: Garling J Decision: 1. Order that the Notice of Motion dated 6 July 2011 be dismissed. 2. Order that the applicants pay the respondent's costs. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - Existing order under the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 restraining property - Variation sought for reasonable legal expenses of sentence proceedings - Prior undertaking by defendants not to make further applications for reasonable legal expenses "with respect of the trial of drug charges" - Whether sentence proceedings "with respect of the trial of drug charges" on construction of the undertaking Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 Jury Act 1977 Cases Cited: DPP (Cth) v Saxon (1992) 28 NSWLR 263 Texts Cited: N/A Category: Principal judgment Parties: New South Wales Crime Commission (Respondent) Jason Lee (1st Applicant) Seong Won Lee (4th Applicant) File Number(s): SC 2010/118966 Publication restriction: N/A

Judgment 1GARLING J : On 13 May 2010, upon the application of the New South Wales Crime Commission, this Court made a restraining order under the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 with respect to property identified in that Order, which was owned or controlled by Jason Lee. 2On 9 December 2010, this Court made a further order which varied the original restraining order for the purpose of providing reasonable legal expenses for the appellants, Jason Lee and Seong Won Lee. 3At the time the variation was made, the applicants gave an undertaking, the terms of which will be fully set out below. 4The Crime Commission and the applicants are now in dispute as to proper meaning of that undertaking. 5The dispute centres upon whether the reasonable legal expenses of the preparation for and hearing of submissions on sentence which are listed on 12 August 2011 in the District Court at Sydney before Solomon DCJ were or were not, covered by the order of the Court of 9 December 2010, and the undertakings which the defendants gave, at that time. 6For the following reasons I am of the view that the reasonable legal expenses of the applicants which will be incurred for the sentence proceedings were included within the order made by the Court on 9 December 2010. I am also of the view that this application is precluded by the undertakings proffered by the applicants.