Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

The NSW Crime Commission

By David Shoebridge - posted Thursday, 30 August 2012


For years there have been questions raised about deals being cut between the Crime Commission and organised crime figures under the Criminal Assets Recovery Act. Of particular concern were repeated reports that the amount allocated for "legal expenses" in these orders was plainly excessive and being used to divert criminals' assets into the hands of their lawyers to be used in future legal cases unrelated to the Criminal Asset Recovery orders. These consent orders had been routinely approved 'on the papers' by a Court Registrar and were never considered in open Court by a Judge.

In 2011 the Supreme Court handed down the decision of New South Wales Crime Commission v Cookthat decided that a Judge had to review the amount being allocated in costs, and had the right to do so in open Court. The Crime Commission did not like his ruling as it required more paperwork to have a Criminal Asset Recovery order approved.

The Patten Report thought that the Cook decision was not only good, but should be expanded to allow the Court to review the merits of both the costs and the amount of assets being seized in the deal between the Crime Commission and the criminal. In the words of Mr Patten:

Advertisement

The Commission's submissions in its second Discussion Paper in relation to the CAR Act also addressed the impact of the decision of Hall J in New South Wales Crime Commission v Cook [2011] NSWSC 1348. That decision in my view stated the proper interpretation of the statute as it has always been and nothing has come to me during the Inquiry which suggests that the Act should be amended to overcome the decision. To the contrary, as appears in Chapter 5, I have recommended, in the interests of transparency, maintaining or increasing, rather than reducing, the impact of the decision in Cook.

The Greens moved an amendment to make this the law. This was opposed by both the government and the opposition. They relied on the advice of the Crime Commissioner that it would unduly restrict or delay the making of Criminal Asset Recovery orders. As a result the Act, as passed by the Parliament, now provides for no Supreme Court oversight of Criminal Asset Recovery orders.

Instead the government has put in place a regime where standard "guidelines" are established by the Crime Commission establishing the basis on which consent orders are allowed to be negotiated with criminals. Any application for consent orders to the Court will then have to include a certification that the guidelines have been complied with. This is at best half a solution to the problem. Again, it is an area that will require close monitoring into the future.

Conclusion

The extraordinary power and potential reach of the NSW Crime Commission raises serious issues for debate in any society interested in striking the right balance between protecting our civil liberties and fighting organised crime. To give the government some credit the Crime Commission Act 2012 does put in place more appropriate (and with the Greens amendment well-resourced) civilian oversight of the NSW Crime Commission.

However during the debate on the new laws the Parliament missed the opportunity to restrain the Crime Commission's indefinite detention powers, curtail its reach into ordinary policing operations, and place its deals with criminals under the Criminal Assets Recovery Act under the close scrutiny of an independent court.

Advertisement

The end result is that the Crime Commission marches on, one step forward, one step back.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

David Shoebridge is a Greens MP in the NSW Parliament, serving in the State’s Upper House.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by David Shoebridge

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of David Shoebridge
Article Tools
Comment Comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy