//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2025] NSWSC 1061
Supreme Court of NSW
2025-09-17
Ierace J
Original judgment source is linked above.
Source: NSW Caselaw (www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Achrafi; R v Zakaria (No 1) [2025] NSWSC 1061
Hearing dates: 27 August, 1, 3, 4 and 8 September 2025
Date of orders: 8 September 2025
Decision date: 17 September 2025
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Ierace J
Decision: The trial date listed for 29 September 2025 in respect of both accused is vacated.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — Co-accused murder trial — Application to vacate trial date — Various bases contended — Where one co-accused seeking permanent stay of indictment on the basis of abuse of process involving his deportation from Türkiye to Australia — Where stay application cannot be prepared nor heard prior to trial date — Whether prima facie evidence of an abuse of process involving the deportation
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 50BA
Solomon Islands Deportation (Amendment) Act 1999, ss 5(3), 7
Cases Cited: Moti v The Queen (2011) 245 CLR 456; [2011] HCA 50
Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Rex
Adam Achrafi (Accused)
Masood Zakaria (Accused)
Representation: Counsel:
E Balodis (Crown)
J Trevallion SC (Accused Achrafi)
M Thangaraj SC; J Roy (Accused Zakaria)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Karnib Saddik Law Firm (Accused Achrafi)
One Group Legal (Accused Zakaria)
File Number(s): 2024/170666; 2024/170703
Publication restriction: The redactions at pars [2], [5] and [33] of this judgment are to remain in place until the completion of the Supreme Court proceedings in respect of Mr Zakaria.
HIS HONOUR: On 4 April 2025, Masood Zakaria and Adam Achrafi were arraigned in the Supreme Court on counts that on or about 20 October 2021 at Guildford they murdered Salim Hamze and Toufic Hamze and, in the alternative, that they were accessories after the fact to the murders. The accused entered pleas of not guilty and a trial date was fixed for 29 September 2025.
On 13 June 2025, as the intended trial judge, I set aside the week commencing 1 September 2025 for the hearing of pre-trial issues. The co-accused anticipated multiple pre-trial issues [Redacted].
By notices of motion and supporting affidavits filed on 22 August (by Mr Achrafi) and on 25 August 2025 (by Mr Zakaria) the co-accused sought orders that the pre-trial hearing and the trial date be vacated. The Crown opposed the orders sought. The applications were heard on 27 August and 1, 3, 4 and 8 September 2025. On that last date, I ordered that the trial date be vacated. These are my reasons for that determination.
In their affidavits in support of their notices of motion, the co-accused’s solicitors advanced multiple bases to vacate the trial, all but one of which I will canvass briefly. I then focus upon the primary basis that was advanced by Mr Zakaria, which persuaded me that it was inevitable that the trial would not be ready to commence on the allocated date, namely, that the trial date be vacated to permit an application for a permanent stay to be made, on the basis of an abuse of process by Australian authorities in the deportation of Mr Zakaria to Australia.
In his affidavit of 22 August and a further affidavit of 26 August, Mr Achrafi’s solicitor, Abdul Saddik, sought the vacating on five bases: the late disclosure by the Crown of a considerable quantity of material left insufficient time for him and trial counsel to comprehend it; he was experiencing difficulties in accessing some of the material that was in an electronic form; anticipated further disclosure of a significant quantity of material by the Crown [Redacted] and the service of an amended coincidence notice by the Crown without clarification of how the Crown case on coincidence evidence is varied from the previous coincidence notice. I note that some of the disclosure issues were able to be addressed satisfactorily over the course of the last fortnight by a co-operative approach of the parties. Others are now of little moment since the trial date will be vacated.
In his affidavit of 25 August, Mr Zakaria’s solicitor, Mohammad Chahine, sought the vacating on three bases, one of which was, similar to Mr Achrafi’s concern, that late disclosure by the Crown of significant quantities of electronic material had impeded Mr Chahine’s capacity for trial readiness.
The remaining two bases concerned his foreshadowed application for a permanent stay. In his affidavit, Mr Chahine and Senior Counsel briefed on the adjournment application submitted that it could not be prepared and heard prior to the trial date due to delay occasioned by resistance by some agencies to the production of documents that are likely to be relevant to the application and the time that Mr Zakaria would require to properly present his application, which may involve arranging for evidence to be given by expert witnesses.
Mr Zakaria is an Australian citizen by birth. Relevant background to his departure from and return to Australia, which is drawn from material filed by the Crown or handed up by Mr Zakaria on the application, includes the following events, listed in chronological order:
On 5 May 2020, Mr Zakaria was charged with the offence of perverting the course of justice and was granted bail. His Australian passport was surrendered, pursuant to a condition of bail.
On 13 December 2021, Mr Zakaria was last seen by police on the afternoon of this date. He later departed Australia, contrary to his conditions of bail, by unknown means.
On 14 December 2021, prompted by Mr Zakaria’s suspected disappearance, police created a future Court Attendance Notice for seven offences, namely, that Mr Zakaria:
(a) Conspired and agreed to murder Ibrahem Hamze; (b) 2 x Knowingly directed activities of a criminal group; (c) Participated in criminal group; (d) Supplied a prohibited drug, being a commercial quantity of cocaine; (e) Dealt with property the proceeds of crime, being $201,600 in Australian currency; and (f) Contravened a serious crime prevention order, by failing to provide his residential address from 5pm on 14 December 2021.
The facts in Moti v The Queen, insofar as they are relevant to Mr Zakaria’s application, briefly stated, are as follows.
In December 2007, Mr Moti, an Australian citizen, was residing in the Solomon Islands. His Australian passport had been cancelled. On 22 December 2007, the Australian Acting High Commissioner to the Solomon Islands presented to the Permanent Secretary of the Solomon Islands Department of Foreign Affairs a request for the provisional arrest of Mr Moti pending an extradition request, to face charges in Australia of child sex abuse. Later that morning, Mr Moti applied to the High Court of Solomon Islands for an injunction restraining the Minister for Commerce, Industry, Labour and Immigration (the Minister) from “threatening, continuing or proceeding with the deportation and or expulsion and or removal of the [Mr Moti] from the Solomon Islands”. The Chief Justice refused the application, although observing that there were “proper procedures” for initiating the processes of extradition or deportation to which, once activated, the appellant would “have opportunity to respond” and that “[a]ny rights [the appellant] has are governed by legislation covering those processes”.
On 24 December 2007, a Deportation Order against Mr Moti was made by the Minister and published in the Solomon Islands Gazette. It authorised and directed any Immigration Officer or Police Officer, any time the order is served on Mr Moti, to place him on board any ship or aircraft leaving the Solomon Islands, and to detain Mr Moti until such arrangements were completed.
The same day, the Australian Acting High Commissioner was informed by the head of the Justice Ministry that the government had decided to pursue Mr Moti’s deportation. She sent a cable to Canberra in which she referred to the Minister’s orders, as published. She attached a copy of the Solomon Islands Deportation Act (the Deportation Act) to the cable and observed: “on our reading of the Deportation Act, [the appellant] has seven days in which to appeal to the High Court before being deported in this manner”. She concluded the cable by requesting advice “on travel documentation” for Mr Moti. Later the same day, a cable was received from Canberra authorising the Honiara Post of the Australian High Commission to issue a Document of Identity to Mr Moti “to enable deportation to Australia”.
On 27 December 2007, Mr Moti was placed on a flight to Brisbane, accompanied by two Solomon Islands officials to whom the Australian High Commission had issued two Short Stay visas to enter Australia. A document of identity for Mr Moti had been issued by the Honiara Post the same day and passed to the two officials. Eleven months later, on 3 November 2008, Mr Moti was indicted in the Supreme Court of Queensland on seven counts of offences contrary to s 50BA of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), to the effect that he had sexual intercourse with a person under the age of 16 in the Republic of Vanuatu and New Caledonia.
Mr Moti alleged that the deportation process involved an abuse of process by Australian authorities that could only be cured by a permanent stay of the indictment.
Section 5(3) of the Deportation Act provided that a person on whom a deportation order was served could apply to the High Court within seven days of its service for a review of the order. Section 7 provided that a person could be placed on a ship or aircraft about to leave the Solomon Islands only if they had not made an application within the time prescribed or, if an application for review had been made, the person had “failed to have the order set aside”.
The majority (French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ), referring to s 7 of the Deportation Act, said, at [42]:
“… It follows that s 7 of the Deportation Act (the provision relied on for the appellant’s deportation from Solomon Islands) did not give power to place the appellant on a ship or aircraft about to leave the country until either the time for making application for review had elapsed or, if an application was made, the application was dismissed. Yet despite the Acting High Commissioner believing this to be the case, and despite her telling her superiors in Canberra that this was her belief and sending to Canberra a copy of the legislation which revealed unequivocally that she was right, Canberra told the High Commission in Honiara to issue a travel document relating to the appellant for use in his deportation. And the High Commission, having issued visas to those Solomon Islands officials who would effect the appellant being placed, against his will, on an aircraft bound for Australia, issued a travel document for the appellant knowing that this was to be done within hours of his being served with the Deportation Order.”
“In considering whether prosecution of the charges laid in the indictment preferred against the appellant would be an abuse of process of the Supreme Court of Queensland, the focus of the inquiry must fall upon what Australian officials had done or not done in connection with the appellant’s deportation from Solomon Islands. To conclude that the deportation was not effected lawfully was a necessary but not a sufficient step towards a decision about abuse of process.”
“And the use of words like ‘connivance’, ‘collusion’ and ‘participation’ should not be permitted to confine attention in that way. All should be understood as proceeding from recognition of the basic proposition that the end of criminal prosecution does not justify the adoption of any and every means for securing the presence of the accused. And in this case, as in others, the focus of attention must fall upon what Australian officials did or did not do.” (emphasis in the original)
“It is enough to observe three matters. First, Australian officials (both in Honiara and in Canberra) knew that the senior representative of Australia in Honiara at the time (the Acting High Commissioner) was of opinion that the appellant’s deportation was not lawful. Secondly, the Acting High Commissioner’s opinion was obviously right. Thirdly, despite the expression of this opinion, and its obviously being right, Australian officials facilitated the unlawful deportation of the appellant by supplying a travel document relating to him (and travel documents for those who would accompany him) at a time when it was known that the documents would be used to effect the unlawful deportation. That is, Australian officials supplied the relevant documents in time to be used, with knowledge that they would be used, to deport the appellant before the time for deporting him had arrived.”
Mr Zakaria has tendered into evidence what appears to be two judgments of the Kutahya Administrative Court of Türkiye, together with translations into the English language, in which he was the moving party. One is dated 16 March 2023 and the other is 7 February 2024. Both judgments are brief and make little reference to the history or other circumstances of the applications. The first makes no reference at all to Mr Zakaria, but it has the same docket number as the second, which identifies the claimant as “Masood Zikria”. There is no evidence of how the judgments were obtained or whether there are other relevant court documents in existence. The explanation from the bar table is that they were provided by a lawyer who was retained by Mr Zakaria while he was in Türkiye, with perhaps more material to be provided by that lawyer for the application for a permanent stay.
The first judgment is only partly produced. The parties are not identified and the first sentence is incomplete. In translation, the judgment reads as follows:
“… there is no ground for requesting the stay of execution and for rendering a decision in this regard.
In the present case, although in the action brought by the claimant against the deportation decision made pursuant to Article 54 paragraph 1 of Law No. 6458 there can also be a request that a stay of execution be granted in order to prevent deportation, by reason of the specific paragraph on which the impugned deportation decision is based, the filing of an action against such decision will in any event result in the foreigner not being deported until the conclusion of the proceedings.
Since, pursuant to Law No. 6458, where an action is filed the foreigner concerned shall not be deported until the proceedings are concluded, it has been concluded that in the present case there is no circumstance necessitation a decision on the application for interim relief (stay of execution).
In these circumstances, it is adjudged that there is no ground for ruling on the application for stay of execution concerning the impugned act, that notification be completed, and that this judgment be rendered unanimously on 16.03.2023.”
“SECTION FOUR
Removal
Removal
ARTICLE 52 –
(1) Foreigners may be removed to their country of origin or a transit country or a third country by virtue of a removal decision.
Removal decision
ARTICLE 53 –
(1) A removal decision shall be issued either upon instructions of the Directorate General or ex officio by the governorates.
(2) The [removal] decision together with its reasons shall be notified to the foreigner, in respect of whom a removal decision has been issued or, to his/her legal representative or lawyer. If the foreigner, in respect of whom the removal decision has been issued, is not represented by a lawyer,
the foreigner or his/her legal representative shall be informed about the consequence of the decision, procedures and time limits for appeal.
(3) Foreigner, legal representative or lawyer may appeal against the removal decision to the administrative court within fifteen days as of the date of notification. The person who has appealed against the decision to the court shall also inform the authority that has ordered the removal regarding the appeal. Such appeals shall be decided upon within fifteen days. The decision of the court on the appeal shall be final. Without prejudice to the foreigner’s consent, the foreigner shall not be removed during the judicial appeal period or until after the finalisation of the appeal proceedings.
Persons subject to a removal decision
ARTICLE 54 –
(1) A removal decision shall be issued in respect of those foreigners listed below who/whose:
a) are deemed to be removed pursuant to Article 59 of the Turkish Penal Code № 5237;
b) are leaders, members or supporters of a terrorist organisation or a benefit oriented criminal organisation;
c) submit untrue information and false documents during the entry, visa and residence permit actions;
ç) made their living from illegitimate means during their stay in Turkey;
d) pose a public order or public security or public health threat;
e) has overstayed their visa or the visa exemption period for more than ten days or, whose visas are cancelled;
f) residence permits are cancelled;
g) overstayed the expiry date of the duration of their residence permit for more ten days without an acceptable reason;
ğ) are determined to be working without a work permit;
h) breach the terms and conditions for legal entry into or exit from Turkey;
ı) are determined to have entered into Turkey despite an entry ban to Turkey;
i) international protection claim has been refused; are excluded from international protection; application is considered inadmissible; has withdrawn the application or the application is considered withdrawn; international protection status has ended or has been cancelled, provided that pursuant to the other provisions set out in this Law they no longer have the right of stay in Turkey after the final decision.
j) fail to leave Turkey within ten days in cases where their residence permit renewal application has been refused.
(2) A removal decision may be issued in respect of applicants or international protection beneficiaries solely when there are serious reasons to believe that they pose a threat to national security of the Turkey or if they have been convicted upon a final decision for an offence constituting a public order threat.”
Accordingly, it would appear that the Kutahya Administrative Court was hearing an application by Mr Zakaria for a stay of execution of a decision to deport him. I note that the reference in the second paragraph of the judgment does not identify which part of Art 54(1) was the basis of the impugned deportation decision. The third paragraph presumably refers to Art 53(3), which suggests that the date of notification of Mr Zakaria of the decision to deport him was within the previous 30 days of date of the judgment, since any appeal would have had to have been heard within 30 days of that date.
The second judgment, which is longer than the first, postdates Mr Zakaria’s deportation. The parties are “Masood Zikria” and “Kutahya Governorship”. Both parties were represented by attorneys, who are identified by name. The judgment commences with a section that summarises the parties’ submissions and the outcome, which is as follows.
“SUMMARY OF THE CASE: The claimant, a national of Afghanistan, has filed this action for the annulment of the decision of the Kutahya Governorship, Provincial Directorate of Migration Management, dated 04.02.2023 and numbered 12955989.101.18.03.5, concerning his deportation pursuant to Article 54/1-(d) of Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection; claiming that he entered the country by lawful means, that he was granted a short-term residence permit and applied for Turkish citizenship, that he requested an extension of his short-term residence permit, and that, in addition, since a case has been filed before the Ankara 1st Administrative Court, registered under case file with docket no. 2023/1123, seeking annulment of the G-26 restriction code imposed upon him as the basis of the deportation decision, and in the event that the annulment of the G-26 code is granted in that case, it would also constitute grounds for annulment in the present case, therefore annulment is requested.
SUMMARY OF THE DEFENCE: It is argued that the impugned act is in conformity with law and regulation, that the claimant has criminal records both in Turkiye and in other countries, that he constitutes a danger to public order, and therefore the action filed by the claimant should be dismissed.
IN THE NAME OF THE TURKISH NATION
Upon examination of the case file by the Kutahya Administrative Court, the following was considered and adjudged:
This action has been brought seeking annulment of the decision of the Kutahya Governorship, Provincial Directorate of Migration Management, dated 04.02.2023 and numbered 12955989.101.18.03.5, concerning the deportation of the claimant, an Afghan national, pursuant to Article 54/1-(d) of Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection.”
The judgment then recites the relevant parts of Arts 52, 53 and 54 (particularly 54(1)(b) and (e)), [2] as well as Art 55, which concerns exceptions to deportation, which have not been suggested to apply in this case.
The judgment continues as follows:
“Upon examination of the case file, it appears that the claimant, wanted in Australia for the crimes of establishing a criminal organisation, intentional homicide and the manufacture and trafficking of narcotics, entered Turkiye with forged documents after fleeing his country, that he and others acting with him were placed under surveillance, that as a result of the surveillance it was determined that they rented a villa in Bodrum district where they stayed, that subsequently, during a police operation, the claimant was apprehended, that a G-26 restriction code (illegal organisation activities) existed in respect of him, that he had criminal records in Australia, and that there was an Interpol Blue Notice regarding him, and on the grounds that the claimant fell within the scope of ‘Those who constitute a threat to public order or public security or public health’ as set forth in Article 54/1-(d) of Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection, the Kutahya Governorship, Provincial Directorate of Migration Management, decided to deport him, and the present action has been brought seeking annulment of the said act.
In the concrete case; since the claimant, who is wanted in Australia for the crimes of establishing a criminal organisation, intentional homicide and the manufacture and trafficking of narcotics, was apprehended during the operation carried out by the law enforcement authorities, and considering all these matters contained in the materials and documents in the file, there appears to be enough evidence to justify an assessment that the claimant may constitute a threat to the national security of the country, to public order and to the right of society to live in security and peace, and in the context of preventing participation in crimes of an international dimension, preventing offenders from committing crimes at different times and places by evading legal prosecution, and protecting the security of the country, since the act was established within the scope of the sovereign powers of the State taking into account the reports of the national security units concerning the claimant, it has been concluded that there is no unlawfulness or illegality in the impugned act.
For the reasons explained, it has been adjudged that the case be dismissed, that the litigation costs in the amount of TL 1,117.40 as itemised below be charged to the claimant, that the counsel fee in the amount of TL 10,500.00, determined in accordance with the AAUT (Minimum Charge Tariff for Lawyers) in force on the date of the decision, be collected from the claimant and awarded to the defendant administration, that the balance of the postal expenses be refunded to the claimant, and, pursuant to Article 53 paragraph 3 of Law No. 6458 on Foreigners and International Protection, the decision be final, this judgment being rendered unanimously on 07.02.2024.”
The three offences for which Mr Zakaria was wanted in Australia coincide with three of the charges in the material provided by the AFP to the Türkiyish authorities on 22 December 2022.
The “decision of the Kutahya Governorship” of 4 February 2023 is described as the decision to deport Mr Zakaria. The date of notification to Mr Zakaria of that decision was clearly prior to the first judgment which, according to the relevant law (Art 53(3)), is when the 30 day period of time within which an appeal is to be lodged and determined to finality. However, the date of this decision, which purports to hear and reject the appeal, is at least eleven and a half months after notification of that decision to Mr Zakaria. Further, it is a decision that was made five weeks after his deportation which, on its face, is contrary to the relevant national law of Türkiye. Accordingly, I am satisfied that there is credible prima facie evidence that Mr Zakaria’s deportation to Australia was unlawful, according to the law of the deporting state.
“HIS HONOUR: What was the delay in Turkey, did he resist the extradition?
LANGE: There was no extradition. So it’s unclear on the material provided by the prosecution. And we have no further information other than instructions I can put from the bar table, that is once detained he demonstrated an eagerness to return to this country, as one might, sitting in a Turkish detention centre. But that’s all I can say in relation to that. There was no extradition process or there was nothing to contest.”
The material produced to date by relevant authorities suggests an awareness by Australian authorities in 2023, following Mr Zakaria’s detention by Türkiyish authorities, that the two possible ways for Mr Zakaria to be returned to Australia against his will to face criminal charges were by his extradition, following a request from Australia, or by deportation. An email dated 2 February 2023 from officers of the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department to relevant officers of the NSWPF referred to a recent media report that the NSWPF favoured the deportation of Mr Zakaria over his extradition, because “it could be arranged sooner”. The same email is evidence that the NSWPF were put on notice that a deportation may give rise to a challenge to a subsequent prosecution if it is claimed that the Australian authorities actively encouraged a deportation or were involved in Türkiye’s deportation decision.
It is unnecessary at this stage to canvass the other material that has been produced that is relevant to this issue. Having regard to that material, I am not satisfied that there is credible prima facie evidence that the Australian authorities knew at the relevant time that Mr Zakaria’s deportation was unlawful (if indeed it was unlawful). However, in determining whether the trial date should be vacated, I take into account that the process of production of material in response to various subpoenae of relevant authorities, including from the NSWPF, is incomplete and the material that has been produced thus far warrants further inquiries.
A similar observation may be made about the state of evidence at this stage of the proceedings in respect of this issue of fact.
The Australian authorities obtained Mr Zakaria’s Australian passport and on 9 February 2023, forwarded it to the Türkiyish authorities for the purpose of facilitating his anticipated deportation to Australia. At that time, it was thought by the AFP that the “administrative process, including Court to have him deported/approved by the Türkiyish authorities, will take up to another 3 months”, which falls short of evidence that at that stage the Australian authorities believed at that time that Mr Zakaria would be deported in a manner that was contrary to Türkiyish law. Correspondence from within the NSWPF suggests that New South Wales authorities were still continuing to prepare for an extradition request by Australia.
The request made by Türkiye in November 2023 to the AFP to consider reimbursing the cost of the air charter to bring Mr Zakaria to Australia, which it is alleged was in fact paid for by the AFP, may be evidence of the facilitation by Australian authorities of what was expected to be a deportation. However, at this stage of proceedings there is no evidence that the reimbursement decision was communicated to Türkiyish authorities prior to the deportation, that the deportation was contingent upon the promise of reimbursement or that the Australian authorities believed at that time that the deportation would be unlawful.
Indeed, there is material to the effect that the AFP were informed by the relevant Türkiyish authorities that the deportation was lawful. A briefing dated 12 January 2024 noted: “On 24 November 2023, AFP Ankara were advised by PMM that Zakaria would be deported to Australia consistent with Turkish law”.
I am of the view that the test to be applied to the determination of whether the trial date should be vacated is whether there is credible prima facie evidence of an abuse of process involving Mr Zakaria’s deportation. As noted, I am satisfied that there is credible prima facie evidence that Mr Zakaria’s deportation to Australia was unlawful according to Türkiyish law. I am not satisfied to the same standard that the Australian authorities knew that Mr Zakaria’s deportation was unlawful according to Türkiyish law and, it follows, that at the time they took steps to facilitate his deportation, that they knew it was unlawful. Nevertheless, in view of there being outstanding subpoenaed material from relevant agencies that may throw further light on what the Australian authorities knew or did not know at the relevant time and the time that process is taking, a vacating of the trial date in respect of Mr Zakaria is unavoidable.
I note that there is a feature of the basis of the foreshadowed application for a permanent stay that differs from the facts of Moti v The Queen and which may pose a further hurdle for Mr Zakaria, which is that there was not a warrant for his arrest on those charges at the time of his deportation; he was not charged with them until five months after his deportation. It will be necessary for Mr Zakaria to demonstrate that if there was an abuse of process, it infected a trial on charges that, on the material presently before me, were not contemplated by the NSWPF at the time of his deportation.
Finally, the Crown prosecutor informed the Court that if the trial date was vacated for Mr Zakaria, it would not seek to proceed on the indictment against Mr Achrafi alone. Mr Achrafi has not resisted that course.
For these reasons, I was satisfied that the trial date in respect of both accused should be vacated to enable the application for a permanent stay to be heard.
**********
PMM is the Presidency of Migration Management, which is the Türkiyish authority responsible for immigration.
The judgment at this point refers to Art 54(1)(e), but the text quoted is in fact the same as Art 54(1)(d), which is conformable with its identification as such later in the judgment.
Redactions at [2] and [5]
At [38], "NSWPF" amended to "AFP"
(2011) 245 CLR 456