• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

The ex parte application was supported by an affidavit sworn by an authorised officer of the Commission, Katie Elaine Bourne, who set out investigatory material: police fact sheets alleging cultivation and supply of cannabis contrary to s 23 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), discovery by police of 145 cannabis plants in a paddock and 97 plants in two rooms within the residence at a rural property purchased by the defendants, and other database searches and records inspections conducted by Commission staff (paras 4–6). Bourne also deposed to a belief that, absent a restraining order, the defendants might quickly dispose of property to defeat the operation of the Act, and she opposed giving notice of the Commission's application (para 7). The judge accepted the affidavit material as supplying reasonable grounds for the suspicions required by s 10A and as justifying an ex parte approach, declined to require notice under s 10A(4), and made the restraining and ancillary orders (paras 8–16). The Court recorded that s 10C provides a mechanism to apply to set aside the restraining order and granted liberty to the defendants to apply on three days' notice (para 13; order 10).

Why the court decided this way

The statutory framework drove the decision. Section 10A of the Act empowers the court to make restraining orders over property where the court is satisfied there are reasonable grounds for suspicions deposed to by an authorised officer. Section 10A(4) enables the court to require notice, but it does not mandate notice in every case; the Court may deal with the application without notice where the circumstances justify it. Section 10A(5) sets the threshold the court must apply, it must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for the suspicions in the affidavit material.

Cavanagh J accepted that Bourne's affidavit contained sufficient factual material to found the requisite reasonable grounds. The affidavit referred to police fact sheets showing charges for cultivation by enhanced indoor means and supply-related offences under the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act (s 23), the physical discovery of large numbers of cannabis plants on the Marulan property, admissions regarding ownership and contents, searches of Commission databases and other investigatory steps (paras 5–6). On that material the judge was satisfied of two things: first, that the conduct amounted to serious crime-related activity within the Act’s definition; and second, that there was a real danger that, if the defendants were given notice, they might quickly dispose of property to frustrate the Act’s purpose (paras 7–11). Consequently the Court concluded the statutory requirements were met and made the restraining orders and ancillary disclosure/examination orders (paras 11–16).

The Court also noted statutory safeguards and procedural rights: s 10C allows an affected person to apply to have a restraining order set aside, and the Court provided liberty to apply on three days' notice while preserving the Commission’s investigative position (para 13; order 10).

Before and after state of the law

Before this decision: the Act already provided a statutory mechanism for the Commission to obtain restraining orders and to compel examinations and disclosure under Part 4. The statutory tests, reasonable grounds for suspicion, and the court’s discretion to require or dispense with notice (s 10A(4)), had been established by the Act itself and by prior practice.

After this decision: Cavanagh J applied those statutory provisions to the facts at hand and confirmed that ex parte restraining orders and ancillary s 12 orders may be made where an authorised officer’s affidavit supplies reasonable grounds for suspicion and where the affidavit establishes a real risk that notice would enable disposal of assets. The decision therefore exemplifies the practical application of ss 10A and 12: it reinforces that properly framed affidavit material (police fact sheets, investigatory records, evidence of physical cultivation and admissions) can satisfy the statutory threshold for ex parte relief, and that the Court will exercise the discretion under s 10A(4) to dispense with notice where necessary to prevent defeat of the Act.

This judgment does not alter statutory law but provides a clear instance of the statutory tests being applied and the types of material the Court will accept to meet those tests. It also underlines that the Court will grant ancillary coercive powers (examinations, sworn statements) to enable the Commission to identify and preserve suspected proceeds or instruments of serious crime-related activity.

Key passages with plain-English translation

• "For the following reasons I am satisfied that the orders sought should be made." [5]

  • Plain English: The judge has read the affidavit and other material and has concluded the legal requirements are met, so the requested orders will be made.

• "Ms Bourne states that she suspects that the first defendant has engaged in a serious crime-related activity ... cultivate by enhanced indoor means prohibited plant ... and knowingly take part in the supply of a prohibited plant ... These offences fall within the definition of 'serious criminal offence' pursuant to s 6(2)(b) of the Act." [7]

  • Plain English: The authorised officer says the defendants are suspected of serious drug offences (growing and supplying cannabis), and the Act defines such offences as "serious", which is necessary for the restraining order power.

• "Ms Bourne also deposes to her belief and knowledge that in the absence of a restraining order it is possible for people to attempt to dispose of property very quickly in an attempt to defeat the operation of the Act ... I accept the reasons identified by Ms Bourne as a proper basis for the application being made ex parte." [7, 8]

  • Plain English: The affidavit explains why giving notice could let the defendants move assets out of reach. The judge agreed that these facts justified not telling them in advance.

• "Section 10A(5) requires the making of the orders sought under the Act, if the Court considers there are reasonable grounds for the suspicions to which Ms Bourne has deposed. I am satisfied there are reasonable grounds ... and the requirements of s 10A(5) of the Act have been addressed." [10–11]

  • Plain English: The law says the court can make the restraining orders if the affidavit gives reasonable grounds; the judge found that it did.

• "There is no doubt that the conduct of the defendants is serious crime-related activity. I am satisfied that the Commission ought not be required to give notice of the application and that it should be dealt with ex parte." [12]

  • Plain English: The judge considered the suspected conduct serious and agreed the application should proceed without alerting the defendants.

What fact patterns trigger this precedent

This decision illustrates the fact pattern where ex parte asset restraint is likely to succeed under the Act:

• Investigative material (police fact sheets, witness statements, search results) alleging the accused have been involved in offences that fall within the Act’s definition of "serious crime-related activity" (for example, large-scale cultivation and supply of illicit drugs) [7].
• Physical evidence located by police (for example, significant numbers of cannabis plants on a property) and admissions as to ownership or control of the property or items [5–6].
• Commission investigative steps documented in an authorised officer’s affidavit, including database searches and other corroborative record inspections that establish links between the suspects and property or assets [5].
• A clear and articulable risk that, if the defendants were given notice of the application, they would quickly dispose of property to defeat the restraint (for example, transferring title, dissipating funds, or selling assets) [7, 8].
• Identification (in schedules to the summons) of specific property and accounts suspected to be connected to the alleged offences, enabling precise restraint orders (para 6).

Where these elements are present, the Commission’s material may be sufficient to found ex parte restraint and ancillary examination orders as in this case.

How later courts have treated it

This decision is an interlocutory application in which Cavanagh J applied the statutory provisions to a specific set of facts. It is principally an example of practice rather than a source of novel legal principle. Later courts referring to this judgment would likely treat it as a practical example of s 10A and s 12 being applied where police material demonstrates large-scale criminality and a risk of asset dissipation. The Court explicitly preserved the procedural protections in the Act by noting s 10C and granting liberty to apply to affected persons, which means subsequent courts should view it as consistent with the Act’s balance between investigative powers and procedural fairness (para 13).

Because the judgment is short and fact-specific, later courts will generally rely on the statutory text and relevant higher-level authorities for legal propositions, using this decision mainly as illustration of acceptable affidavit content and the pragmatic exercise of the court’s discretion under s 10A(4) to permit ex parte orders where notice would be prejudicial.

Still-open questions

• Scope of acceptable affidavit material: While this judgment accepts the types of material relied on here, the precise sufficiency of different combinations of evidence (for example, reliance on untested police fact sheets versus corroborated document searches) remains a matter for judicial assessment in each case; the threshold "reasonable grounds" is fact-sensitive and future litigants will test its limits.
• Degree of specificity required in schedules: The orders here restrained property identified in Schedules One to Four. What level of detail is required in those schedules to satisfy procedural fairness while still enabling effective preservation of assets could arise in future cases, particularly where assets are numerous or held through complex structures.
• Interaction with third-party rights: The Court noted s 55 (state of mind of a body corporate) and provided liberty to apply, but the treatment of third-party innocent owners or registered mortgagees (the orders expressly excluded registered mortgagees acting under their mortgage) may generate litigation about the content and protection of third-party proprietary interests once restraining orders are in place (para 5; orders 1–3).
• Timing and scope of s 12 examinations: The practical contours of compelled examinations and the limits on questioning, privilege claims and public interest immunity in that context will be issues for further litigation and judicial calibration as the Commission pursues investigations following restraint.

Concluding observation: New South Wales Crime Commission v Gupta is a concise application of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act's ex parte restraining and disclosure regime to a fact pattern of alleged large-scale drug cultivation and supply. The judgment illustrates the kind of affidavit material and factual assertions that will satisfy the statutory "reasonable grounds" test and justifies dispensing with notice where there is a real risk of asset dissipation. It also preserves the procedural safeguards in the Act by acknowledging the right to apply to set aside and by limiting interference with registered mortgagees' rights.