Australian Federal Police (Civil Matters) v Shamsuz Zaman

HIS HONOUR: I have before me an application for what are styled consent orders. They are consent orders signed by both the representative of the plaintiff, being the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police, and the defendant. A slight glitch, very properly raised by the solicitor appearing for the Commissioner, is that the capacity of the signatory under the defendant’s name on the consent orders is not indicated. However, Mr Akbar, has tendered as exhibit A, an email exchange between himself and the law firm of Sydney Criminal Lawyers and specifically the clerk for the solicitor who has carriage of the matter, he being an experienced criminal lawyer.

I am satisfied that the orders have been signed by the defendant himself and pursuant to s 316 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth) may be such orders may be made without consideration of the matters otherwise relevant.

It is a case where the defendant has been convicted of an indictable offence and the orders are sought under s 48 so that s 316(2)(b) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth) which provides certain time restrictions do not apply.

Accordingly, I make the consent orders set out in the document handed up in court this morning. These orders are: