New South Wales Crime Commission v Cassar [2012] NSWSC 1170

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: New South Wales Crime Commission v Cassar [2012] NSWSC 1170 Decision date: 28 September 2012 Before: Rothman J Decision: See [49] Catchwords: EVIDENCE - hearsay evidence of source of documents and whether documents are a business record - exceptions to hearsay rule relating to interlocutory proceedings and to business records not confined to "first-hand hearsay" - general unreliability of hearsay particularly beyond "first-hand" - authentication of documents and source established in interlocutory proceedings - once established as business records documents then admissible in substantive proceedings Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995 Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 Cases Cited: Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Rich [2005] NSWSC 417; 216 ALR 320 Bray v F Hoffman-La Roche Ltd (2002) 118 FCR 1 National Australia Bank Ltd v Rusu (1999) 47 NSWLR 309 New South Wales Crime Commission v Vu [2009] NSWCA 349 Category: Interlocutory applications Parties: New South Wales Crime Commission (plaintiff) Charles Michael Cassar (first defendant) Representation: Counsel: I.D. Temby QC (plaintiff) R.J. Bromwich with T. Watts (first defendant) Solicitors: New South Wales Crime Commission (plaintiff) Burston Cole & Associates (first defendant) File Number(s): 2007/264589

Judgment 1HIS HONOUR: The New South Wales Crime Commission (hereinafter "the Commission") moved on notice filed 21 July 2010 for orders under s 31A of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (hereinafter "CARA"). The issue with which these reasons for judgment deals is the admissibility of evidence, to which objection is taken on the basis that the material is hearsay. 2Under s 31A of CARA, the Court is empowered to make orders that certain interests in property vest in the Crown where those interests were not disclosed by the person against whom the orders are sought. The Court must make the orders for which application is made, if the Court finds it more probable than not that the defendant's interests in property, sought to be vested in the Crown, were not disclosed by the defendant when earlier required to be disclosed.