Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions v Barker & Anor
[2009] QDC 193
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions v Barker & Anor[2009] QDC 193
- Add to List
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions v Barker & Anor[2009] QDC 193
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions v Barker & Anor[2009] QDC 193
[2009] QDC 193
DISTRICT COURT
CIVIL JURISDICTION
JUDGE ROBIN QC
No 1085 of 2009
COMMONWEALTH DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS | Applicant |
and |
|
WILLIAM FREDERICK BARKER and BARKER CONSTRUCTIONS QLD PTY LTD (ACN 134 394 317) | Respondent
Respondent |
BRISBANE
DATE 25/06/2009
ORDER
CATCHWORDS: (Cth) Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 s 180 – order made ex parte for examination of a person claiming ownership of a motor vehicle apparently within a restraining order made under s 18 and of family members alleged to have provided her with funds to pay for it.
HIS HONOUR: On the application of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions the Court has made orders whose terms appear in initialled drafts for the examination of four individuals pursuant to section 180 of the Commonwealth Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 which provides:
"(1) If a restraining order is in force, the Court that made the restraining order, or any other Court that could have made the restraining order, may make an order (an examination order) for the examination of any person, including:
(a) a person whose property is, or a person who has or claims an interest in property that is, the subject of the restraining order, or
(b) a person whom the restraining order states to be a suspect for the offence to which the restraining order relates, or
(c) the spouse or de facto partner of a person referred to in paragraph (a) or (b);
about the affairs (including the nature and location of any property) of a person referred to in paragraph (a), (b) or (c).
(2) The examination order ceases to have effect if the restraining order to which it relates ceases to have effect. "
The application is brought ex parte. I am satisfied that that is in order. Should the four individuals affected wish to challenge the orders for the purpose of avoiding examination, they are entitled to apply, as happened in Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions v Ngo [2005] QDC 299.
The restraining order, which is the foundation of the Court's jurisdiction for present purposes, was made by Judge McGill SC under section 18 of the Act on the 14th May 2009. The basis of that was a belief which his Honour was persuaded was sufficiently well founded that the first respondent had become entitled to money pursuant to illegal drug dealings and that the proceeds of his activity could be traced, in part at least, to the company Barker Constructions Qld Pty Ltd.
When officers attempted to take possession of assets affected by Judge McGill's order in respect of a particular motor vehicle, a claim to ownership was made by Ms Kennedy. The vehicle is not registered in her name. She happens to be the partner of the respondent, Mr Barker's son who is one of those the subject of an examination order, the other two being Ms Kennedy's father and brother. The assertion confronting the investigation is that together they provided funding to permit Ms Kennedy to give proper consideration for her acquisition of the vehicle. These circumstances fall fairly and squarely within the section, making it appropriate to have made the orders.