AD v Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police [2018] NSWCA 89

Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: AD v Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police [2018] NSWCA 89 Hearing dates: 1 August 2017 Decision date: 30 April 2018 Before: Beazley P at [1]; Meagher JA at [118]; Gleeson JA at [119] Decision: (1) To the extent that it is required, grant leave to the appellant to appeal pursuant to the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 101(2).

(2) Appeal dismissed.

(3) Dismiss each of the appellant's notices of motion filed on 6 March 2017 (stay application) and 6 March 2017 (leave to adduce further evidence).

(4) Set aside the appellant's notice to produce filed on 27 March 2017.

(5) The appellant pay the Commissioner's costs of the application for summary judgment, the costs of the appellant's motions and all other costs associated with the appeal. Catchwords: CRIME – proceeds of crime – whether exclusion order can be made in respect of property restrained under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth) that has already been forfeited – whether appellant should be allowed to argue that restraining orders against appellant's property were obtained by fraud

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – meaning of "conviction day" under Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth)

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – whether Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth), ss 18, 26(4), 92, 95 and 338(a)(ii), (a)(iv) and (g) of the definition of "serious offence" are constitutionally valid Legislation Cited: Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW), s 108 Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), ss, 6, 7 Criminal Code (Cth), ss 11.5, 135.4, 400.3 Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth), ss, 18, 26, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 107, 116, 117, 180A, 331, 333, 338 Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 75A, 101 Cases Cited: Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Territory Revenue (2009) 239 CLR 27; [2009] HCA 41 Attorney-General (NT) v Emmerson (2014) 253 CLR 393; [2014] HCA 13 Certain Lloyd's Underwriters v Cross (2012) 248 CLR 378; [2012] HCA 56 Coulton v Holcombe (1986) 162 CLR 1; [1986] HCA 33 Dickson v Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police [2018] HCASL 5 Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Chan (2001) 52 NSWLR 56; [2001] NSWCA 249 Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Kamal (2011) 248 FLR 64; [2011] WASCA 55 General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125; [1964] HCA 69 Gould v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (2017) 343 ALR 275; [2017] FCAFC 1 Gypsy Jokers Motorcycle Club Inc v Commissioner of Police (2008) 234 CLR 532; [2008] HCA 4 Halac v Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police [2016] NSWCA 146 International Finance Trust Co Ltd v New South Wales Crime Commission (2009) 240 CLR 319; [2009] HCA 49 Jackamarra v Krakouer (1998) 195 CLR 516; [1998] HCA 27 Matthews v Chicory Marketing Board (Vic) (1938) 60 CLR 263; [1938] HCA 38 Roy Morgan Research Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (2011) 244 CLR 97; [2011] HCA 35 Studman v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) (2007) 177 A Crim R 34; [2007] NSWCA 285 SZTAL v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2017) 347 ALR 405; [2017] HCA 34 Woodcroft v Director of Public Prosecutions (2000) 174 ALR 60; [2000] NSWCA 128 Category: Principal judgment Parties: AD (Appellant) Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: In person (Appellant) E A Cheeseman SC; J C Conde (Respondent) G Jones (amicus curiae)