Commissioner of Police v Alameddine

By way of a summons filed on 1 December 2020, the plaintiff, the Commissioner of Police, seeks orders in the nature of a serious crime prevention order within the meaning of s 5 of the Crimes (Serious Crime Prevention Orders) Act 2016 (NSW) (“the Act”) on terms set out in annexure A of the summons.

The plaintiff seeks orders against two defendants, being Rafat Alameddine as the first defendant and Masood Zakaria as the second defendant. Mr Gyles SC appears for the plaintiff. Mr Saddik appears for the first defendant and Mr Khatiz appears for the second defendant.

The plaintiff relies on an affidavit of Nicholas Scott Regener, dated 21 December 2020, who is the solicitor acting for the plaintiff. The defendants have not sought to rely on any evidence.

The matter was first listed before me on 21 December 2020, ostensibly for the purposes of making case management orders for the exchange of further evidence and for the allocation of a hearing date. During the debate on that day, Mr Saddik indicated that his client may be prepared to discuss entering into consent orders with the plaintiff and I stood the matter over for further hearing until today, 24 December 2020.

On 23 December 2020, I was informed that the plaintiff and each of the first and second defendants had reached agreement as to orders which could be made under s 5 of the Act. I was provided with draft proposed orders.

I have reviewed those orders. As submitted by Mr Gyles, it is necessary that I have an independent satisfaction that the orders should be made. I am so satisfied and I set out the reasons for that satisfaction.

Mr Regener has been informed and instructed by Detective Chief Inspector Glyn Baker of a number of matters relating to both the Hamzy organised crime network and the Alameddine organised crime network.

Having regard to New South Wales Police Force COPS events, criminal histories and intelligence, DCI Baker believes that those two organised crime networks are responsible for drug importation, interstate drug supply, local drug supply, money laundering, public place shootings, kidnapping and other offences of violence. Mr Regener deposes to the belief of DCI Baker that the first and second defendants are members of or directly involved in the Alameddine crime network, and that both of them have been convicted of serious criminal offences and have otherwise engaged in serious criminal activity.

Since 2013, there have been several violent incidents, including murders involving members and associates of the Hamzy and Alameddine organised crime networks.

Further, during 2020, there have been a series of unreported conflicts between the two networks over drug distribution and DCI Baker believes that there is current and ongoing escalating conflict between the rival criminal networks.

Specific instances of that ongoing conflict are referred to in the affidavit of Mr Regener. Those specific instances include acts of violence, which were caught on video, which I viewed today, robbery and shootings.

On 11 November 2020, the plaintiff commenced separate proceedings in the Supreme Court against Ghassan Amoun and Ibrahem Hamze. Those proceedings were the subject of a judgment by Garling J on 18 December 2020. His Honour made a serious crime prevention order against Ghassan Amoun and Ibrahem Hamze. [1]

In addition to the affidavit of Mr Regener and the material annexed to that affidavit, I have regard to the content of his Honour's judgment. As Mr Gyles submits, the proceedings with which I am dealing are somewhat interlocked with the proceedings and orders made by Garling J.

As observed by his Honour, there have been only a limited number of judgments involving the Act. The Act was the subject of High Court consideration in Vella v Commissioner of Police (NSW). [2]

Although the principal issue in Vella was the validity of the legislation, considerable guidance may be obtained from the High Court's judgment in terms of the proper application of the Act.

Section 5 of the Act is in the following terms:

As set out in Vella at [39]–[54], there are six steps that are required to be considered before a Court can exercise the power to make a serious crime prevention order under the Act. Those steps are as follows:

In the sixth step, the Court has a general discretion as to whether it is appropriate to make the orders.

There is no dispute as to what I will describe as the matters of fact, such as the age of the defendants and the criminal histories of the defendants. In circumstances in which the defendants consent to the orders sought and where similar or related issues have been the subject of an extensive judgment dealing with the Hamzy criminal network only as recently as 18 December 2020, it is not necessary that I reiterate the factual background to this application.

I am satisfied of the matters set out in ss 5(1)(a) and (b) of the Act. They are established on the evidence.

In terms of s 5(1)(c), I am satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the making of the orders would protect the public by preventing, restricting or disrupting involvement by the persons in serious crime relating activity.

I am so satisfied, having regard to the affidavit of Mr Regener, but also having regard to the proposed consent orders proposed by the parties. Those consent orders include matters such as a prohibition on the use of aliases, a requirement that the defendants notify of their residence and of any intention to move residence, restrictions on use of communication devices, including restrictions on use of encrypted devices, a prohibition on using more than one e-mail account and the requirement of notification of the e-mail account, a prohibition on possession of cash of a value of more than $10,000, a restriction on operating more than one bank account, a requirement of notification of ownership of use of vehicles and the restriction on associating with persons named in the proposed consent orders, including a number of members of the Alameddine and Hamzy family and any person known to the defendants or believed by the defendants to be a member of the criminal organisation known as Brothers for Life.

I am satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that those orders would protect the public by preventing, restricting or disrupting involvement by the defendants in serious crime related activities.

The final step is to consider whether I should exercise my discretion to make the orders proposed.

Having regard to the evidence before me and the matters referred to in the related matter of Amoun, I am satisfied that the orders should be made. I regard them as appropriate. I do not consider that the orders would significantly impact upon their general freedom of movement or right to live in the community in a law-abiding fashion. The orders are designed to restrict and prevent only criminal activity.

In the circumstances, it is appropriate that I make the orders sought.

In respect of each defendant, I make a serious crime prevention order within the meaning of s 5(1) of the Crimes (Serious Crime Prevention Orders) Act 2016 (NSW) on the terms and conditions set out in annexure A to this judgment for a period of 12 months.