R v David Peter Cain (No.2)

HIS HONOUR: My reason for suspending the order which I made earlier today was that I was informed by the Crown that an order had been made pursuant to the Proceeds of Crime Act 1987 in relation to the applicant’s interest in the property 52 Brighton Street, Banksmeadow, and that a further order might have been made affecting, in a relevant way, the premises at 243 Pyrmont Street, Pyrmont. The relevant orders of this court made under the statute have now been produced. It is apparent that the applicant’s interest in the property at 52 Brighton Street is not available to be pledged as security for performance of the conditions of the order which I proposed. That appears to be the whole of the relevant effect of the orders made under the statute.

I should add that counsel for the applicant did not, in his submissions to me, propose that the applicant’s interest in the Brighton Street property should be made available for the purpose of the bail application. That was something that I introduced of my own initiative, being unaware of the orders which had been made under the Proceeds of Crime legislation.

It is necessary, therefore, to reconsider the application without regard to the applicant’s interest in the Brighton Street property. Putting that interest out of the account, there remains a sum substantially in excess of $1 million, suitably secured, available to support the conditions which I proposed for an order that bail be granted. That being so, I remain of the view that conditional bail should be granted, and I re-state my previous order, with the exception that there will be deleted from paragraph 1 (f) the item relating to the appellant, including the figure of one hundred and fifty thousand dollars and the reference to the Brighton Street property. I have crossed out that item in the minute of my order. oOo