The Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police v Pharmacy Depot Hurstville [2018] NSWSC 741

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: The Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police v Pharmacy Depot Hurstville [2018] NSWSC 741 Hearing dates: 22 May 2018 Date of orders: 22 May 2018 Decision date: 22 May 2018 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Campbell J Decision: I direct the parties to bring in short minutes of order largely conforming to the Notice of Motion filed on 4 May 2018 and including expressly liberty to apply to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE – orders for examination of persons - proceeds of crime - consent - subject to conditions - audio visual link - costs - power resides in approved examiner - Administrative Appeals Tribunal - no power to make orders in relation to costs - reserved liberty - direct parties to being short minutes of order Legislation Cited: Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth) ss 180, 190 Cases Cited: Nil Texts Cited: Nil Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: The Commission of the Australian Federal Police (Plaintiff) Pharmacy Depot Hurstville (First Respondent) Yaakop (Jacob) Youssef (Second Respondent) Hamza Amin Zoghbi (Third Respondent) Representation: Counsel: J Dooley (First and Second Respondents)

Solicitors: Australian Federal Police (Plaintiff) HP Legal (Third Respondent) File Number(s): 2015/114787

EX TEMPORE Judgment 1. In this matter the Commissioner for the Australian Federal Police (AFP) applies for orders for examination of persons specified in the Notice of Motion filed on 4 May 2018. The Commissioner moves on the affidavit of Financial Investigator James Patterson of the Australian Federal Police affirmed on 4 May 2018. I am satisfied that restraining orders have been made in this matter first by Justice Bellew on 17 April 2015 and secondly by me on 10 March 2017. 2. So far as other questions arising under s 180 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth) ("Proceeds of Crime Act") are concerned Mr Dooley who appears for two of the persons to be examined consents to the order for their examination. A third person, Mr Jacob Youssef, is represented by Hassan Hammoud of HP Legal. Mr Hammoud's e-mail to Ms Kougellis who represents the AFP before me has been tendered on the application and marked as Ex 1. His client consents to being examined subject to conditions. The first condition is that the examination should be conducted by Audio Visual Link (AVL) as he is apparently out of the jurisdiction. The second is that costs should be borne out of the restrained assets or at the AFP's expense. 3. So far as the first condition is concerned I am satisfied by reference to s 190 of the Proceeds of Crime Act, that there is a power to order an examination by AVL but that that power is reposed in the approved examiner, that is to say the Administrative Appeal Tribunal (AAT), and an application will have to be made in that regard by Mr Youssef. I am also satisfied that I do not have the requisite power under the Act to make any order in relation to costs. 4. In these circumstances I am satisfied that I should make the order sought having regard to the terms of s 180 of the Proceeds of Crime Act, but I will reserve liberty, if it is necessary, for Mr Youssef to apply to the AAT for an order that the examination in his case be conducted over AVL. 5. I direct the parties to bring in short minutes of order largely conforming to the Notice of Motion filed on 4 May 2018 and including expressly liberty to apply to the AAT.