Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: New South Wales Crime Commission v Pham [2019] NSWSC 1038 Hearing dates: 31 July 2019 Date of orders: 31 July 2019 Decision date: 31 July 2019 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Ierace J Decision: Orders made as sought Catchwords: CRIME – confiscations – restraining order – serious crime derived property Legislation Cited: Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW), s 10A Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: New South Wales Crime Commission (Plaintiff) Jessica Pham (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: R Katrib (Solicitor) (Plaintiff) Solicitors: New South Wales Crime Commission (Plaintiff) File Number(s): 2019/256971 Judgment 1. HIS HONOUR: The New South Wales Crime Commission ("the plaintiff") seeks a restraining order on an ex parte basis pursuant to s 10A of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW) ("the Act") in respect of certain property set out in a schedule to the summons. The defendant in this matter is Jessica Pham, also known as Thi Huyen Nguyen ("the defendant"). The summons, which is dated 30 July 2019, is supported by an affidavit sworn by Katie Elaine Bourne on the same date, who is an authorised officer of the plaintiff for the purposes of the Act. 2. Section 10A(5) of the Act requires this Court to make the restraining order if the application is supported by an affidavit of an authorised officer stating that he or she suspects that one of the statutory requirements set out in s 10A(5)(a) are satisfied and the grounds on which that suspicion is based. As well, the Court must consider that, having regard to the matters contained in the affidavit and any other evidence adduced, there are reasonable grounds for the suspicion. 3. The authorised officer, Ms Bourne, deposes to a suspicion that the defendant has engaged in a serious crime-related activity or activities pursuant to s 10A(5)(a)(i) of the Act. Namely, she suspects that the defendant has knowingly taken part in the cultivation of prohibited plants not less than the commercial quantity contrary to s 23(2)(a) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), which falls within the definition of "serious criminal offence" pursuant to s 6(2)(b) of the Act. Ms Bourne deposes that this suspicion is based on certain material in the form of emails which are set out at par 5 of her affidavit. 4. I have read the affidavit and the annexures and am satisfied that the suspicions that Ms Bourne deposes to are based on reasonable grounds. Therefore, I am satisfied the onus borne by the plaintiff has been satisfied and it is appropriate to make the orders in the terms sought. ********** DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 15 August 2019