Commissioner of Police NSW Police Force v Meehan

Supreme Court of NSW|2022-11-21|Before: Schmidt AJ, Ms J

Solicitors: Makinson d'Apice (Plaintiff) Zahr Partners (Defendant) File Number(s): 2022/190406

JUDGMENT

The Commissioner and Mr Meehan agreed that the Court should exercise its discretion to make a serious crime prevention order against Mr Meehan, the National President of the Comanchero Outlaw Motorcycle Gang, under s 5 of the Crimes (Serious Crime Prevention Orders) Act 2016 (NSW). Having heard the parties and considered the evidence and submissions, yesterday I made the order which they had agreed. The reasons for making that order are as follows.
The terms of the consent order prohibit Mr Meehan from using an alias; require him to notify his residential address, any change in that address and when he intends to reside elsewhere; restrict and regulate his use of communication devices and email and other accounts, his possession of cash and bank accounts and his use of vehicles; and also restrict his associations with specified people.
The Commissioner led uncontested evidence and advanced largely unchallenged submissions to persuade the Court that the consent orders should be made. Mr Meehan's position was that the evidence and the parties' submissions should lead the Court to exercise its discretion to make the orders agreed.

Conclusion

The evidence and the submissions persuaded me that the applicable statutory requirements had been established by the evidence, which revealed the existence of circumstances which required the acceptance of the parties' common position that the Court's discretion to make the orders agreed should be exercised.

How the statutory requirements were satisfied

There was no issue as to the validity of s 5 of the Serious Crime Prevention Orders Act, which was considered in Vella v Commissioner of Police for New South Wales (2019) 269 CLR 219; [2019] HCA 38, nor that the Commissioner was an eligible applicant for the orders sought.
There was also no issue that the evidence satisfied the applicable requirements of ss 5 and 6 of the Act which, as explained in Vella at [40]-[54], involve five essential steps.
That Mr Meehan was over 18 years was conceded and also established by evidence. That satisfied the first essential step flowing from s 5(1).
Section 5(1) relevantly empowers the Court to make the orders agreed against Mr Meehan, if satisfied that: 1. he has been involved in serious crime related activity for which he has not been convicted of a serious criminal offence (including by reason of being acquitted of, or not being charged with, such an offence); and 2. there are reasonable grounds to believe that the making of the order would protect the public by preventing, restricting or disrupting his involvement in serious crime related activities.
Section 6 also requires consideration to be given to the appropriateness of the prohibitions, restrictions, requirements and other provisions proposed, "for the purpose of protecting the public by preventing, restricting or disrupting involvement by the person in serious crime related activities."

Step 2

The second step is concerned with the past, requiring satisfaction that Mr Meehan has been involved in "serious crime related activity": s 5(1)(b). That is defined in s 3 as anything done by a person that is or was at the time a serious criminal offence, whether or not: (a) the person has been charged with the offence, or (b) if charged, the person: (i) has been tried, or (ii) has been tried and acquitted, or (iii) has been convicted (even if the conviction has been quashed or set aside).
"Serious criminal offence" is defined in s 3 to have the same meaning as in the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW), where it is defined in s 6(2) by reference to specified offences.

The serious crime related activity relied on

The summons pleaded in ground 2 Mr Meehan's firearms conviction, but it was agreed that this was not a "serious crime related activity" under the Serious Crime Prevention Orders Act and so was finally not relied on by the Commissioner.
Rather, the Commissioner relied on s 93T of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ground 3 of the summons advancing Mr Meehan's involvement in serious crime related activity for which he has not been convicted. That is an offence within s 6(2)(g1) and 6(2)(d) of the Serious Crime Prevention Orders Act.
There was no issue about Mr Meehan's involvement in such offending, given the uncontested evidence. Subsections 93T(1) and (1A) provide: (1) A person who participates in a criminal group is guilty of an offence if the person - (a) knows, or ought reasonably to know, that it is a criminal group, and (b) knows, or ought reasonably to know, that his or her participation in that group contributes to the occurrence of any criminal activity. Maximum penalty - Imprisonment for 5 years. (1A) A person who participates in a criminal group by directing any of the activities of the group is guilty of an offence if the person - (a) knows that it is a criminal group, and (b) knows, or is reckless as to whether, that participation contributes to the occurrence of any criminal activity. Maximum penalty - Imprisonment for 10 years.
"Criminal group" is defined in s 93S of the Crimes Act to mean "a group of 3 or more people who have as their objective or one of their objectives - (a) obtaining material benefits from conduct that constitutes a serious indictable offence, or (b) obtaining material benefits from conduct engaged in outside New South Wales (including outside Australia) that, if it occurred in New South Wales, would constitute a serious indictable offence, or (c) committing serious violence offences, or (d) engaging in conduct outside New South Wales (including outside Australia) that, if it occurred in New South Wales, would constitute a serious violence offence.
There was also no issue that the Comanchero are a criminal group as so defined. I am satisfied that this is also established by the evidence.

The unchallenged evidence

The unchallenged evidence of Detective Chief Inspector Cadden and Detective Sergeant Groenewegen included: 1. explanations of the source of material to which they had had regard in forming their opinions about the criminal activities in which the Comanchero and Mr Meehan had been involved; their extensive education, training and policing experience in the investigation of criminal groups, including the Comanchero and the Rebels Outlaw Motorcycle Gang of which Mr Meehan was formerly a member; 2. the traits of outlaw motorcycle gangs such as the Comanchero, whose members: 1. consider themselves to be beyond the law; 2. identify to others that they hold such beliefs, by patches which they wear and at times violently defend; 3. pursue offences involving violence, firearms and other weapons and drugs; 4. organise themselves in complex organisations with vertical structures and hierarchies governed by written and unwritten rules which dictate their behaviour, which includes an expectation that they will commit violent acts, including in order to assist other members and in obedience to the orders and directions of office bearers; 5. bear allegiance to the organisation and refuse to co-operate with police even in the case of the most serious of offending involving murder, kidnapping, very serious assaults and commercial drug trafficking; and 6. protect and enhance their organisations' reputation by use of serious violence, including when members who leave are subjected to penalties including fines, extortion, property theft and violence. 1. the Comanchero's history, internationally and in Australia, where it was formed in 1966 and spread overseas. It includes the 2009 Sydney airport brawl between its members and members of the Hells Angels Outlaw Motorcycle Gang and the resulting charges, convictions and murders of some of those involved; 2. Mr Meehan's membership of and increasing seniority in the two groups. He became the President of the Cronulla chapter of the Rebels, which he became associated with in 2008, joined in 2010 and left in 2014 when he joined the Comanchero. There he became the President of the Sutherland chapter, climbing the ranks to become ACT Commander in 2020, Sydney Commander in 2021 and later National Commander and President, after the arrest in April 2022 of the former National President, for his involvement in a murder; 3. the role of the National President of the Comanchero, who has ultimate responsibility for its operations, including: 1. being its identified figurehead; 2. having power to: 1. direct and instruct all other members; and 2. veto decisions of others as to Comanchero operations nationally and at local levels; 1. being responsible to ensure maintenance of the organisation's reputation, particularly for serious violence and the defence of that reputation against disrespect from other gangs, as well as people not involved in them; and 2. authority to direct the Comanchero's serious crime related activities, including authorising or directing the use of violence. 1. that as a result the National President is likely to have knowledge of and involvement in the commission of serious criminal activity, the discovery of which would directly impact the Comanchero; 2. their opinions about Mr Meehan's: 1. likely involvement in offences involving drug trafficking, including import, manufacture, sale and supply, theft, fraud, obtaining financial benefits from the crime of another; money laundering, extortion, bribery, corruption, harbouring criminals, blackmail, obtaining or offering a secret commission, perverting the course of justice, tax or revenue evasion, illegal gambling, forgery and homicide; and 2. knowledge of the commission of such offending, even if not directly involved and his resulting ability to conceal or cause to be concealed, its commission and details. 1. the criminal threats which outlaw motorcycle gangs such as the Comanchero pose in Australia and how Federal and State law enforcement bodies are funded and staffed to identify, investigate and disrupt their activities; 2. the reluctance of victims of such criminal activities to give evidence because of their fear of retribution and/or adherence to a culture of silence towards non-members, especially police; 3. the many violence, intimidation, firearm, weapons and drug importation, supply and possession offences which Comanchero members have been convicted of since 2007. There have also been convictions under s 93T of the Crimes Act for directing and/or participating in criminal groups; 4. what various overt and covert surveillance had disclosed about Mr Meehan's access to and use of encrypted technology and physical and electronic anti-surveillance devices and how that had impeded the investigation of crimes; and 5. Mr Meehan's own limited criminal history, conviction in 2014 of possessing an unauthorised pistol contrary to s 7(1) of the Firearms Act 1996 (NSW).
The only submission about the evidence advanced for the Commissioner which Mr Meehan disputed, was acceptance of Detective Chief Inspector Cadden's opinion that he had the responsibility for facilitating a reprisal attack for the shooting of Tarek and Omar Zahed in May 2022. Detective Chief Inspector Cadden's opinion was that Mr Meehan had this responsibility, given his role on becoming the Comanchero's National Commander and President.
It is not necessary to base the conclusions I have reached on that disputed submission. But it is relevant that given the undisputed evidence of Detective Chief Inspector Cadden on which it was advanced, that the submission has a basis in the evidence, must be accepted. That follows from Mr Meehan not cross-examining the Commissioner's witnesses, nor himself giving or calling evidence to dispute either the opinions or the matters on which they were based.
In the result the unchallenged evidence and the submissions advanced about it by the Commissioner had to be accepted, as the case otherwise advanced for Mr Meehan acknowledged.

Step 2 is satisfied

In Commissioner of Police v Cole [2018] NSWSC 517, s 93T of the Crimes Act also arose for consideration. There Davies J had to consider the position of another outlaw motorcycle gang, which he considered at [46] gave rise to three questions: 1. is the Finks a criminal group? That can be determined without regard to the individual defendants. 2. does each defendant know, or ought reasonably to know, that the Finks is a criminal group? 3. does each defendant know or ought reasonably to know, that his participation in the group contributes to criminal activity?
As was the Commissioner's case, the evidence in this case establishes that all three of these questions must be answered positively, that satisfying the elements of s 93T(1) as well as subs (1A), given how Mr Meehan is empowered as the National Commander and President, to direct the activities of the Comanchero.
On the evidence I have discussed, Mr Meehan's concessions, implicit as they were in his agreement to the making of the consent orders, that the Comanchero is a criminal group; that he knew or reasonably ought to have known that it is a criminal group; and that he knew or reasonably ought to have known that his participation in that group contributed to criminal activity, were all properly made.
That also accorded, it should be noted, with adherence to his obligations under s 56 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), assisting the Court to "facilitate the just, quick and cheap resolution of the real issues in the proceedings".
A group such as the Comanchero, which has as its National President accepts, the objective of protection and enhancement of its reputation through the commission of serious violence offences; which enforces its rules by the use of violence; which pursues internal and external conflict by intimidation, physical violence, the use of firearms and explosives, as well as involvement in the drug trade, money laundering and other serious offending, is a criminal group, as that term must be understood.
Mr Meehan's continued membership of that group while obtaining positions of increasing power over its members, to whom he can give orders which result in their involvement in the commission of crimes and who are thereby the means by which the group achieves its criminal ends and which results in members' conviction of a great many, serious offences, it must also be accepted, well establish his requisite knowledge. The evidence of the anti-surveillance steps which he has pursued reinforce this conclusion.
The evidence not only establishes that the Comanchero are a criminal group, but that both its nature and that Mr Meehan's participation has contributed to its criminal activities, which are all known to him. That is also reinforced by his agreement to the proposed orders. At the very least, that is what he reasonably ought to have known.

Step 3

This is concerned with the likelihood that Mr Meehan will be involved in serious crime related activities in the future: s 5(1)(c) of the Serious Crime Prevention Orders Act. I am satisfied that the evidence also establishes that there is a real and significant likelihood of such involvement, as he also conceded.
What is required is not that the evidence establish that Mr Meehan will be involved in serious crime related activities, but that there is a likelihood of such involvement. That is, that the evidence establishes "a real and significant risk" of such involvement: Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force v Zahed [2021] NSWSC 1606 at [30].
As discussed in Commissioner of Police NSWPF v Amoun [2020] NSWSC 1810 at [41] the statutory definitions make plain "that involvement in serious crime related activity "encompasses not just the actual commission of a serious offence directly by an individual, but also conduct which facilitates another person engaging in serious crime related activity or conduct which "…is likely to facilitate serious crime related activity"."
On the uncontested evidence, which includes the unchallenged opinions of two senior police officers, based on their extensive experience of policing criminal organisations including the Comanchero's which are accepted by the cases which both parties advanced, I am well satisfied that the necessary likelihood of Mr Meehan's future involvement in serious crime related activities has also been established. That reflects the position which Mr Meehan occupies and the power and responsibilities which it gives him and the concessions he has made.
There is a long and concerning history of the Comanchero and its members' pursuit of assault, murder and retaliation amongst outlaw motorcycle gangs in which they were involved. On the evidence there is also a likelihood of further retaliation, which Mr Meehan does not dispute.
Before he joined the Comanchero and attained positions of seniority Mr Meehan had himself been convicted of a firearms offence, committed while in company with others carrying a large amount of cash, methylamphetamine mixed into wax and when a loaded pistol was located where it had been secreted nearby, on which his DNA was found, together with other loaded firearms.
Although not convicted of other offending, on the evidence Mr Meehan's later involvement in even more serious criminal offending is long ongoing, albeit with the result that his own criminal record is limited. Nothing in the evidence suggests that this involvement is likely to cease, even if the proposed orders are likely to disrupt his ability to pursue such activities as he has in the past. The necessary likelihood that he will continue to be involved in serious crime related activity is thus well established by the undisputed evidence.

Step 4

This step requires consideration of whether the facts establish reasonable grounds to believe that the consent order would prevent, restrict, or disrupt Mr Meehan's involvement in serious crime related activity: s 5(1)(c) of the Serious Crime Prevention Orders Act.
There was also no issue about this and I am satisfied, given the conditions which have been proposed by the consent order, which it has been agreed should operate for a period of 12 months, that the necessary reasonable grounds for the required belief have been established.
The conditions agreed will in various ways constrain Mr Meehan's ability to direct and be involved in the types of criminal activities which the Comanchero and its members actively pursue.
The conditions will help prevent Mr Meehan's use of aliases, accessing safe houses where criminal business is conducted, using anti-surveillance tactics to evade law enforcement and disruption of criminal investigations, including by restricting his use of cash, vehicles, communication devices and emails not notified to police. Thereby they will assist in disrupting his further involvement in the serious crime related activity revealed by the evidence.

Step 5

This requires consideration to be given to whether the order is "appropriate" for the purpose of protecting the public, given the prohibitions, restrictions, requirements and other provisions it proposes to prevent, restrict or disrupt Mr Meehan's involvement in serious crime related activities: s 6 of the Serious Crime Prevention Orders Act.
This requires a consideration of Mr Meehan's own criminal record and pursuit and occupation of his membership of the Comanchero and the positions which he has held and continues to hold; the evidence of the offending in which the Comanchero and its members have pursued and the crimes of which they have been convicted. It also requires consideration of the intrusions into Mr Meehan's liberty, which will result from the imposition of the order.
It must be accepted that those intrusions will be considerable, although some of them impose notification requirements, rather than prohibitions.
The intent of the order is necessarily to significantly disrupt and prevent further serious criminal activity of the kind already discussed, including large scale drug dealing and the dispersal and laundering of proceeds, as well as preventing offences of serious violence. In part that is sought to be achieved by considerable restrictions on Mr Meehan's association with named individuals and steps such as his display of Comanchero colours.
I am satisfied that given the very serious nature of all of the offending which arises for consideration and the real need to protect the public from further such offending, that the proposed orders, while undoubtedly in some respects onerous, have been fashioned not only to properly ensure their effectiveness, but also to take into account Mr Meehan's need to continue living in society, accessing his residence, vehicle, communication devices and to conduct his legitimate financial affairs.
As Mr Meehan himself accepted, I am satisfied that a just balance has thereby been achieved.

Discretion

On all of the evidence I have discussed I was also satisfied that the parties' common position that there is a proper basis for the Court to exercise its discretion had to be accepted.
Mr Meehan's consent was relevant, entitling the Court to act on his concessions, as he submitted: State of New South Wales v Paton [2020] NSWSC 1707 at [33], there in the context of an application to impose an extended supervision order under the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW).
I also considered that there was a very significant public interest in the Court exercising its discretion to make the proposed consent orders in the circumstances revealed by the uncontested evidence which I have explained. Further, that the terms of the orders agreed, arrive at an appropriate balance, as Mr Meehan also accepted, reflective of the risks which he poses and the approach adopted in the order, to limit in an appropriate way the detriments which result for him.

Orders

It was for those reasons that, by consent I ordered that: 1. In respect of the defendant, within New South Wales, a serious crime prevention order within the meaning of section 5 of the Crimes (Serious Crime Prevention Orders) Act 2016: 1. on the terms set out in Annexure A; or 2. on such terms as the Court deems fit, for a period of 12 months.
Term of orders: 12 months ANNEXURE A A. Definitions In these orders, the following definitions apply:

"ordinary name" means, in respect the defendant, Allan Meehan and Allan John Norman Meehan.
"primary residential address" means a residential address that is owned and/or leased by the defendant in his ordinary name which the defendant will ordinarily sleeps most nights. If the defendant does not have a residential address that is owned and/or leased by the defendant in his ordinary name, "primary residential address" means a residential address where the defendant ordinarily sleeps most nights, and which is notified as such.
"defendant" means the defendant, Allan Meehan.
"notify" means to send an email to an email address provided, in writing, by the Commissioner of Police, or his delegate, to the defendant and his lawyer, within three hours of these orders coming into effect (but in any event, cgsscpo@police.nsw.gov.au unless otherwise advised within the three hours). This email address is to then be the email address for the provision of any information required to be notified by either of the defendants to the Commissioner of Police in accordance with the orders of this Court.
"a communication device" or "a communication service" shall include but is not limited to: a mobile telephone; a telephone landline (whether with or without handset); a SIM card or an e-SIM; a satellite telephone; a fixed or mobile telephone or like device which uses a Voice Over Internet Protocol; a 2-way radio; a computer; a fax machine; or any other device configured so as to enable voice, images, text or data to be sent or received.
"computer" includes but is not limited to: a desktop computer; a laptop computer; a tablet computer; or an iPad/Notebook or Netbook.
"commercial transaction" means the purchase and/or supply of goods and/or services or any other commercial exchange or transaction, and including but not limited to retail, business and personal transactions.
Without restricting the meaning of the word "possession", for the purposes of any proceedings for a breach of this order an item is taken to be in the possession of the defendant so long as it is in or on any premises owned, leased or occupied by, or in the care, control or management of, the defendant, unless the court is satisfied that the defendant did not know and could not reasonably be expected to have known that the item was in or on the premises.
"premises" means any place, vehicle, vessel or aircraft.
"cash" means banknotes and coins in any currency, including Australian currency, postal orders, traveller's cheques, casino chips and/or betting slips.
"hire vehicle" includes any kind of vehicle which is loaned or leased and includes taxis, commercial rental vehicles and ride sharing services (of which Uber is one such example).
"designated username, password or personal information number" means: Username: XXXX Password: XXXX Personal Identification No: XXXX B. IDENTITY 1. Prohibition on use of alias 1.1 The defendant is prohibited from using any name other than his ordinary name when speaking with, emailing or otherwise communicating with any police officer, Commonwealth or State government authority, or any employee or agent of such authority, any financial institution, when engaging, or attempting to engage or taking steps to engage, in any commercial transaction, or when responding to any requirement lawfully made upon him for proof of his identity. C. RESIDENCE 1. Notification of Residence 2.1 The defendant must, within 6 hours of these orders coming into effect, notify his primary residential address. 2.2 If the defendant intends to change his primary residential address, he must notify, 7 days prior to moving, the following information: i. the date of his move to the proposed address; ii. the specific and full address of the proposed residence; and iii. the date upon which he is to commence living at that proposed address. 2,3 The defendant is prohibited from residing, or staying the night, at any premises, unless the defendant notifies of any night (and the number of nights) during which he intends to temporarily reside away from the primary residential address at any form of accommodation, whether paid for, or provided without charge. The defendant must do so within 24 hours after 9.00 am on the morning after the first night occurring and must notify the following information: i. the date of his first stay at the accommodation; ii. the full address of the accommodation; iii. the date on which he will return to his primary residential address. D. COMMUNICATIONS 1. Restriction and notification of communications devices 3.1 The defendant is prohibited from using, possessing or controlling a communication device, or a communication service which: i. is accessed or used in any username other than the designated username, or password, or which is not accessed through the designated username, or password, or personal identification number; ii. is encrypted, or else is capable of being used to send encrypted voice communications or transmit encrypted images or data messages; iii. to his knowledge, runs messaging applications or accesses websites which remain encrypted once received, or else automatically delete a message once sent, or else, once received and read; iv. to his knowledge, runs software, or accesses websites, which are designed to or else have the effect of, preventing data from being retrieved from the communications device, service; v. if capable of accessing and has the capacity to retain the history of websites visited, but it is possible for this capacity is to be disabled or circumvented, the defendants must not disable, or otherwise circumvent that function so that it does not operate effectively; or vi. is not registered with a service provider solely in the defendant's ordinary name. with the exception of a communication device or communication service which is used or controlled by him for the sole purpose of assisting his children with school work, or in the course of and for the sole purpose of his employment. Any such device must be: (a) notified within 6 hours of these orders coming into effect, along with: (A) evidence of consent satisfactory to the commissioner of Police from the owner of the device that police may access the device for the purpose of inspection; (B) any information necessary for inspection to occur; (b) made available for examination on request by any police officer. 3.2 Within 6 hours of this order taking effect, the defendant shall notify the Commissioner of any communication device or computer permitted by this order which he will use, identifying the service provider, the service number, or telephone number and the IMEI (or other identifying number). 3.3 The defendant is prohibited from using or physically possessing or controlling any communication device which is not notified to the Commissioner in accordance with condition 3.2. 3.4 The defendant is prohibited from instructing, directing or requesting that any other person or persons use, control or possess a communication device that the defendant proposes to use, whether that communication device is one that has been notified to the Commissioner in accordance with condition 3.2 or not, on the defendant's behalf, unless in the course of his employment. 3.5 The defendant shall make available for examination on request by any police officer any communication device or computer that he owns or has in his possession or uses or controls, together with any storage device, provided that any request is not made by a police officer for examination when in attendance at the defendant's residence at any time between 9pm and 7am unless they are present for another purpose.. 3.6 Except in accordance with these orders, the defendant is prohibited from using another person's communication device or computer at any time or in any place except for the purpose of contacting any emergency service or else any commercial provider of roadside assistance. 1. Restriction and notification of email and/or efax accounts 4.1 The defendant is prohibited from knowingly using or controlling more than one email account at any one time except where the defendant is a proprietor of a business which has a current registered ABN, the use or control by a defendant of one additional email account for the purposes of the registered business will be permitted. 4.2 Any email account the defendant knowingly uses or controls must be registered with the service provider in the defendant's ordinary name, and can only be used if the user- name and password are those designated in the order. 4.3 The defendant shall notify within 2 hours of first having using or controlling an email account permitted by clause 4.2 above, the: i. the name of the email account provider; ii. the defendant's email address; and iii. the username and password associated with that email account. 4.4 The defendant is prohibited from using a communication device, or a computer, or subscribing or accessing any internet-based application which does not have the designated username, password or personal identification number. 4.5 The defendant must not use any publicly available communications device or computer other than for the purpose of contacting any Emergency Service or any commercial provider of roadside assistance. 1. Prohibition on the possession or use of Anti-Surveillance technical equipment 5.1 The defendant is prohibited from owning, controlling or using any equipment which to his knowledge can be used for anti-surveillance purposes, including but not limited to: i. equipment capable of jamming, blocking or interrupting mobile phone transmissions or GPS signals; or ii. equipment capable of tracing audiovisual or other surveillance equipment. E. CASH AND BANK ACCOUNTS 1. Restrictions on possession of cash 6.1 The defendant shall not possess cash to a total value of more than $10,000 in Australian currency. 1. Restriction on bank accounts 7.1 The defendant is prohibited from holding, using, or operating a bank account, whether in Australia or elsewhere, or credit card account, or possessing a credit or debit card, unless: i. there is a maximum of one bank account, one credit card and one debit card; ii. such account or card is held in the defendant's ordinary name; iii. the details of the financial institution, the account name and type, the account number, the BSB number and the current balance associated with each account or card is first notified within 12 hours of the Order taking effect. F. VEHICLES 1. Notification of the Ownership and Use of Vehicles 8.1 Within 12 hours of this Order taking effect, the defendant shall notify the details of any private motor vehicle which he owns, possesses, uses or controls. Any such notice shall include in respect of each vehicle the following information: i. the registered owner of the vehicle and their contact details; ii. the vehicle's registration number; and iii. the vehicle's make, model and colour. 8.2 The defendant is prohibited from driving any vehicle unless at least 12 hours prior to first driving the vehicle he has notified the details of the vehicle set out in Condition 8.1. 8.3 The defendant is prohibited from hiring a vehicle of any kind, and using, possessing or controlling a hire vehicle unless at least 12 hours prior to hiring or first using the hire vehicle, the defendant has complied with Condition 8.4. 8.4 The defendant may hire, use, possess or control a hire vehicle for his personal use provided that: i. the vehicle is hired in his ordinary name; and ii. he has notified his intention to hire the vehicle and provided the following details: a. the name and address of the hire company; b. the date on which he intends to take possession of the vehicle; c. the period for which he intends to hire the vehicle; d. the vehicle's registration number; and e. the vehicle's make, model and colour. 8.5 The defendant is prohibited from modifying, adapting or permitting another person to modify or adapt any vehicle owned or used by him in a way that would allow a person to conceal cash, firearms, weapons, drugs and/or any other items. 8.6 The defendant is prohibited from using any vehicle that has any modifications or adaptations that would allow a person to hide or conceal any items in or on the vehicle. 8.7 If the defendant uses a taxi service (including through apps such as Uber) or any other privately owned vehicle to travel, he must notify the licence plate of the vehicle he travelled in within 24 hours of having travelled along with the origin and destination of the trip. G. RESTRICTIONS ON ASSOCIATING WITH OTHER PEOPLE 1. The defendant must not approach, contact, or speak to, or associate directly or indirectly with Name DOB Mohamad Alameddine 12 November 1983 Coen King 6 January 1993 Robert King 16 September 1969 Trent Hawes 20 June 1988 Kyle Shepherd 19 December 1989 Alen Moradian 31 July 1974 Victor Youssef 17 August 1985 Noah Ramziya 2 November 1984 William Ross 20 March 1954 William "Jock" Ross 5 August 1943 Nathan Baxter 7 September 1990 Rewi Jye Brown aka David Psaroudis 15 March 1987 George Lergou 5 August 1977 Watson Namoa 2 April 1988 Koray Unver 27 September 1986 James Hampson 14 December 1982 Luke Camilleri 16 October 1989 Karl Dennor aka Karl Brand 17 February 1987 Jay Cilidonio 13 November 1990 Tyson Cilidonio 8 August 2000 Atilio Cilidonio 21 March 1969 Jessie Phillips 13 March 1996 John Gallagher 9 April 1964 Sid Datt 1 July 2000 James Power 10 October 1987 Emmanuel Vamvoukakis 21 June 1980 Blake Gennison 7 May 1995 Caine Jones 23 February 1980 Kurt Mifsud 29 September 1992 Lino Belsito 12 February 1968 Scott Hume 20 September 1988 Matthew Douet 9 July 1990 Jonathon O'Neile 12 March 1989 Carige Howell 10 May 1985

i. any person known to the defendant, or else believed by the defendant to be a member of the criminal organization known as "Comanchero Outlaw Motorcycle Gang" (both in Australia and abroad) any person known to the defendant, or else believed by the defendant to be a member of any criminal organization that is a "Outlaw Motorcycle Gang" (both in Australia and abroad whether in writing, or by oral or electronic communication (i.e. via telephone, text message, email or other social media) or communication through a third party or other intermediary. H. CHATTELS & ACCOUTREMENTS

9.1 The defendants must not wear, display publicly (including by electronic means), or possess outside his primary residence or exhibit any: a. "colours" (meaning a vest or related garment bearing a "3 piece patch" on the rear bearing the logo, name and location of the defendant and any badges of rank, achievement or commemoration on the front in respect of the Comanchero OMCG) (relevant OMCG); b. "soft colours" including I-shirts and other garments bearing the known, accepted or registered images associated with the relevant OMCG; c. items of jewellery bearing: i. The relevant OMCG logo ii. The initials of the relevant OMCG iii. ACCA iv. 1% v. Any other accepted image linked to the relevant OMCG. d. item of clothing bearing the name, code or sobriquets of the relevant OMCG; e. vehicle decorated with imagery reflective of the relevant OMCG; f. number plate issued by an Australian government bearing OMCG related terms; g. poster, plaque or decoration bearing or referring to the logos, imagery or spirit of the relevant OMCGs; h. other item linked to, related to or reflective of the relevant OMCG.

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: 22 November 2022

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (15 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (6)

Cases Cited (6)