A primary judge's finding that an applicant has failed to discharge the onus of proving indigence on a Dietrich application, based on rejection of the applicant's evidence as vague, unconvincing and inherently implausible, is a finding of fact reviewable only for House v The King error. The absence of provisions in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth) permitting release of restrained assets to fund a person's defence, in contrast with corresponding State confiscation legislation such as the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW), may bear upon the interests of justice in granting leave to appeal from refusal of a Dietrich stay, even where the appeal is dismissed on the merits.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 5 later cases that cite this judgment.