A judge making ex parte restraining orders under the Criminal Property Forfeiture Act 2002 (NT) must give reasons for the decision, even where some material is confidential, and the reasons must disclose as much as possible consistent with protecting confidential material. The provisions of the Act preventing release of restrained property for legal expenses (ss 46(2), 49(4), 154(1)(a)) are constitutionally valid, but the court retains inherent power to stay proceedings or refuse to extend restraining orders where lack of representation would result in an unfair hearing. The court also retains a discretion to refuse to make a restraining order over some property to allow legal expenses to be paid.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 5 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 5 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.