Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Kamal

(2011) 248 FLR 64; [2011] WASCA 55

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Constitutional Law (Cth)
2. › Judicial power of Commonwealth
3. › Ch III limitations on legislative power
4. › Kable principle
5. › Restraining orders over property under Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth)
6. › Whether s 26(4) requires ex parte determination of restraining order application
7. › Whether provision repugnant to judicial process
8. › Whether adequate inter partes revocation procedure preserves validity
9. › Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth), ss 18, 26, 42
10. › Constitution (Cth), Ch III
1. Statutory Interpretation
2. › Construction of Commonwealth legislation
3. › Distinction between 'consider', 'hear' and 'finally determine'
4. › Whether s 26(4) and s 26(5) of Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth) can operate harmoniously
5. › Whether explanatory memorandum may be used where text not ambiguous
6. › Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth), s 15AB
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Appeals
3. › Whether judgment final or interlocutory
4. › Declaratory order setting aside restraining order
5. › Whether right of appeal picked up by s 79 of Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth)
6. › District Court of Western Australia Act 1969 (WA), s 79(1)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Proceeds of crime
3. › Restraining orders
4. › Ex parte applications
5. › Duty of full disclosure on ex parte applications
6. › Revocation of restraining orders
7. › Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth), ss 18, 26, 33, 42

Quick Take

Section 26(4) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth) requires only that the court 'consider' an application for a restraining order without notice — it does not require the court to 'finally determine' the application ex parte. The court retains power under s 26(5) to direct the DPP to give notice to the property owner before final determination. Even if the Act required ex parte determination, the s 42 revocation procedure provides an adequate inter partes remedy that is compatible with Ch III of the Constitution, distinguishing the position under the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW) considered in International Finance Trust.