Citation: Commissioner of Police v Alameddine [2020] NSWSC 1919
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 24 December 2020
Judge(s): Cavanagh J
Background
The Commissioner of Police commenced proceedings by summons on 1 December 2020, seeking serious crime prevention orders against two defendants said to be members of the Alameddine organised crime network. The application was brought under s 5 of the Crimes (Serious Crime Prevention Orders) Act 2016 (NSW), which empowers a court to impose restrictions on a person where there are grounds to believe the orders would protect the public by disrupting involvement in serious crime related activity.
The proceedings arose in the context of an escalating conflict between the Alameddine and Hamzy organised crime networks. Those networks were the subject of separate but related proceedings, in which Garling J had made serious crime prevention orders against members of the Hamzy network only days earlier, on 18 December 2020.
After the matter was first listed on 21 December 2020, the parties reached agreement and proposed consent orders by 23 December 2020. Cavanagh J emphasised that even where parties consent, the court must independently satisfy itself that the statutory requirements are met before making any order.
Legal Issues
- Whether the statutory requirements under s 5(1) of the Crimes (Serious Crime Prevention Orders) Act 2016 (NSW) were established on the evidence, including whether the defendants had engaged in serious criminal activity.
- Whether there were reasonable grounds to believe that the proposed orders would protect the public by preventing, restricting or disrupting the defendants' involvement in serious crime related activity.
- Whether the court should exercise its general discretion to make the proposed orders, including whether the orders were appropriate and proportionate in the circumstances.
Decision
Satisfaction of statutory preconditions under s 5(1)(a) and (b):
Cavanagh J was satisfied that the matters required by ss 5(1)(a) and (b) of the Act were established on the evidence (at [20]). The court accepted the evidence of the plaintiff's solicitor, who deposed to the beliefs of Detective Chief Inspector Baker, that both defendants are members of or directly involved in the Alameddine organised crime network, have been convicted of serious criminal offences, and have otherwise engaged in serious criminal activity (at [8]).
Reasonable grounds to believe orders would protect the public under s 5(1)(c):
The court was satisfied that there were reasonable grounds to believe the orders would protect the public by preventing, restricting or disrupting the defendants' involvement in serious crime related activity (at [21]-[23]). The court had regard to the affidavit evidence, video footage of specific violent incidents, and the content of the proposed consent orders themselves (at [11], [22]-[23]). The orders included prohibitions on using aliases, restrictions on communication and encrypted devices, limits on cash possession above $10,000 and on operating multiple bank accounts, vehicle notification requirements, and restrictions on associating with named individuals connected to the Alameddine and Hamzy networks or the Brothers for Life criminal organisation (at [22]).
Exercise of discretion:
Having regard to the evidence and the related judgment in the Amoun proceedings, Cavanagh J exercised his discretion to make the orders (at [25]). The court considered the orders appropriate and found they would not significantly impact the defendants' general freedom of movement or their ability to live in the community in a law-abiding manner, as the orders were designed to restrict criminal activity only (at [25]).
Orders Made
- A serious crime prevention order under s 5(1) of the Crimes (Serious Crime Prevention Orders) Act 2016 (NSW) was made against each defendant on the terms and conditions set out in Annexure A to the judgment, for a period of 12 months.
Key Takeaways
-
Even where parties have agreed to consent orders under the Crimes (Serious Crime Prevention Orders) Act 2016 (NSW), the court must independently satisfy itself that the statutory requirements are met before exercising the power to make a serious crime prevention order (at [6]).
-
The Supreme Court confirmed that the six-step framework identified by the High Court in Vella v Commissioner of Police (NSW) governs the exercise of power under s 5 of the Act, with the sixth step involving a general discretion as to whether it is appropriate to make the orders (at [17]-[18]).
-
Where two sets of proceedings involving rival organised crime networks are "interlocked," a court may have regard to findings made in the related proceedings as part of its consideration, alongside the evidence directly before it (at [13]).
-
Conditions imposed by way of serious crime prevention orders, including restrictions on communication devices, cash holdings, bank accounts, association with named individuals, and residence notification, were characterised by the court as directed at disrupting criminal activity rather than imposing a significant burden on lawful daily life (at [25]).
-
Sufficient evidence existed, through police intelligence, criminal histories, and video footage of specific incidents, to establish ongoing escalating conflict between rival organised crime networks and to ground reasonable satisfaction that orders would protect the public (at [10]-[11], [23]).
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation
- Crimes (Serious Crime Prevention Orders) Act 2016 (NSW), s 5
Cases
- Commissioner of Police v Amoun & Anor [2020] NSWSC 1810
- Vella v Commissioner of Police (NSW) [2019] HCA 38; 93 ALJR 1236