Government Book Royalty Seizure

8/9/2019 Government Book Royalty Seizure

1/9


2/9

02432001 D.1 T15 , /KLB(BNE)M/T COA35 , /2001KEANEJA: The Corunonweafth Director of pubfic pr:osecutions, 'tt , ' r h - n o P , , i L i \ r n . i 5 . r f ^ . 1 . : c . ^ . - r * r l r c r r : n l t ^ . 2 0 o r E h eP u r o u o l L r v rProceeds of Crine Act 2002 (Cth) ("the Act',) for an orde! thatany paynents made by Pan MacMilfan Austrafia, after the orderis made. to Schapelfe Corby or her sister or brother in-.Iaw or ' !0any other agent, in respect of the publication, ',My StorySchape-lfe Corby with Kathryn Bonelfa", must not be disposed ofo the r :w i se than in to the cus tody and con t t o l o f the Of f i c i a lT rus tee in Baok t :up tcy . A s im i fa r o rde r i s sough t in respec tof pal.ments nade by Pacific Magazine pty Ltd to Schapelle 20-Corby 's s is te r in respec t o f an a r t i c l e pub l i shed in themagaz ine , "New Idea" . Fu r the r o rders a re sough t to f r eezethese . ana l any fu r ther such pa ) , f l en ts , un t i l the de te rmina t io no f the DPP's c l a im tha t these moneys shou ld be pa id to theConmonviealth. 30The app l i ca t ion 1s b rough t ex pa r te , as pe r rn i t ted by s 26(4 )o f the Ac t , because the moneys in ques t ion n igh t be eas i l yd isposed of be fo re any order cou ld be made i f no t i ce o f the

I appfication !,/ere to be given to the respondent - The saneconcern , name ly , tha t the DPP's app l i ca t ion migh t be renderednugato ry i f th l s app l i ca t i on wer ]e heard in pub l i c , Lead thecou r t to hear the app l i ca t ion in -camera . See J v .L , AServjces Pty Ltd (No 2) 179951 2 edR 10.

It should be said this application is in no way determinativeof t'he substantive rights of the parties- The orders sougncby the DPP are interim orders. They may be made on the basiso f reasonab le susp i c i on on l he Da r t o I t .he deponen ts upon whom

40

50

JUDGMENT 50


3/9

42a3200 ' / D . 1 T15 , /KLB(BNE) 4 / " t coA35 /200 - lthe DPP re l i es as to the fac ts upon wh ich the Dpp 's c fa im i s 1based . l he Lac lua l bas j s T or a f i na f o rde j ro r Lhe pa lmen t o fmoneys to the Corunonwealth must be establ ished on the bafaoceo f p robab i l i t l es . f t shou ld a lso be no ted tha t Schape l leCorby, or any other per:son affected by the order, nay appLy l0fo r i t s revoca t ion pursuan t to s 42 o f the Ac t .

The fuff terms of the order sought were contained in the draftproffered by the DPP and mar.ked Exhibit 1 in theseproceed ings . In th i s rega td r the Cou r t $ ras in fo r :med by Mr

the DPP in tends to se rve Schape l le Corby , her s i s te r anc lb ro the r - i n - Iaw , the pub f i sher o f the memoi r , and the owner o fNew Idea i / i t h any o rder made by th is Cour t , i l s reasons andthe reasons o f the lea rned D is t r l c t Cour t judge . as we l l asa l l Ta re r i a_ t . l ed rn s , i nnd . . ' t q i . i ^n : - , i ^n

The appL ica t ion was or ig ina l l y made by the Dpp to a _ judge ofthe D is t r i c t Cou r t , who , on 15 February 200? , re fused theapp l i ca t ion fo r reasons wh i ch I w i l l nen t ion . The Dpp 'sapplication is renewed before this Court by way of appealpursuant to r 763(1) of the Unifom Cjvif procedure Rufes 7999(Q1d ) ( " the ucPR" .

20

30

40

5Ut he -u l e re l evan t l v p rov ides :

"If a ,tudge refuses an application made in the absence ofa p9rty, the party who made the application nay renew theapplication in the absence of the other party by way ofappeal to the Court of Appeal. ' ,

JUDGMENT 60


4/9

42a32001 D.1 T15 , /KLB(BNE) /T COA3 ' /200JLeave to appeal is necessary irnder s 118 of the Drstr-ict Cou-rt aaf Queensfand Act 1967 lQId) - See Dpp (Cth) v Eart (No 1)l2 j04 l 2 OdR 1 at t3 l . Th is is c lea i : fy an appropr id te casef d r i h a d - : n f ^ f I a : r . o l - , 6 ^ :lsuduse an lmportant question of 1awar i ses , 10Sec t i on 20(1) {d ) o f the Act p r :ov i des fo r the nak ing o f theorder sought by the DPP if, relevantly: "there are reasonablegrounds to suspect that a person has cornmitted a foreignind i c tab fe o f fence , and tha t the person has der ived l i te ia ry

2proceeds in re fa t i on to the o f fence ' , . 0

Sec t i on 153 o f the Ac t p rov ides , re l evan t l y j

( d ) T he pe rson ' s noLo r i e ty resu l t i no t !om Lheperson committing an indictable offence or a foreignind i c tab fe o f fence ;

(1 ) - i Le ra ry Proceec l s a re any bene r i L Lha l d pe l sonderives fron the corunercial expfoitation of: 30

12) The conmerciaf exploitation may be by any meansincluding:

(a ) pub l i sh ing any mater ia l i n w r i t t en or e lec t ron icform 50

JUDGMENT 60


5/9

0203200 '7D.1 T15 , /KLB(BNE) /T COA35/2oO'1(34 ) - I t he o f fence i s a fo re i gn i nd i c rab fe o f fence ,rhen Lhe bene f i t i s noL t rea red as I i Le l a ry p roceedsun]ess the benefit is derived in Austral ia or transferredto Aus t ra l ia ,

The DPP seeks to intercept payments which the affidavit of aFederal agent, Ms Corkery, suqqests were made by pan MacMlf1anAus t r .a f i a Pt y L td ( " the pub l i sher o f the memoi r ' , ) , a companyincorpora ted in Aus t ra l ia , in exchange fo r : Schape l l e Co rby ,sstor:y of her arrest, imprisonment and conviction in Indoneslafor the importation of cannabis into that country. MsCor.keryrs affidavit suggests that pa),ments have been made fromthe pubf i sher o f the memoi r f rom Aus t ra l i a by te legraph ict rans fe r to the bank account in Indones ia o f Schapef le Corby ,sbrother-in-faw/ as advances due on the Schapefle Corby memoir,a book wr i t ten in coopera t ion $ / i th Schape l le Corby . MsCorkery suspec ts tha t these amounts are he ld on beha l f o fSchapelfe Cor:by.

T t i s a l so sugges ted tha t 915 ,000 is payab le to Schape f feCorbyrs sister or nominees pursuant to attanqements made as aresu l t o f a w r i t t en o f fe r f rom pac i f i c Magaz ines p ty L td ( , , theowner of Ne!./ Idea,'), a company incorporated in Austral ia. toMercedes corby for an e>


6/9

020320A1 D.1 T1s IK IB (BNE) M/T COA35/2007The learned DiEtrict Court judge, to whom the Department ofPublic Prosecutions applied, was satisfied that the7 a - r i r A m a h i _ c ^ F c . ) n ^ F f L 6-,,J Act were met, save the requirementthat the relevant benefit be derived in Auetralia or:transferred to Austral ia.

His Honour referred to Lhe concep! of "derivation,,, as thatnotion has been expounded in cases concerned with thederivation of income for: the purposes of incorne tax faw, andconcluded:

t0

"But if the respondent 's income was simply as a resulL ofwork done or other things done by the respondent outsideAustral ia, then the benefit that is any remunerationpaid to the respondent for doing those ti ings - was noE,in my opinion, derived in Austral ia.The re i s no rh ing in t l - e p rese - r t ma te r i a r co g i vc r i se i oa reasonable suspicion that any payment made to therespondent (o r mo .e re levan t l y fo Eh i rd par l i es , buL onem gnL reasonao-Ly suspecL fo r Ehe bene f i t o f therespondent) i/as derived from property of the respondentin Austral ia. In those circumstances the material doesnot provide a proper basis for concfuding that thebenefits identi f ied in the material rdere to be treated a6I i te ra ry proceeds wi th in Sec t i on 153 (3A) o f the Ac t .On the mate r ia l p resen t l y ava i lab le , the re to re , in myoplnlon there were not reasonable grounds to suspect thatthe respondent has derived li terat y proceeds in relationto tt le offence, because there are i tol reasonabfe qroundsto suspec t tha t any l iLe ra ry proceeds have been d6r i vedin Aus t ra l i a . ' ,

26-

30

4A

The Departrnent of Public prosecutions subnLits that it is notnecessary to sa t i s i y s 153(3A) or s 153 (1) o f the Ac t , Lha t a 50benefit sought to be intercepted under the Act be generatedfrom the respondent ' s properly in, or personal exertion in?Austral ia: al l that is required is that the benefit be

JUDGMENT OU


7/9

02a3200 '7 D .1 T15 IKLB(BNE) M/T COA35/200?derived in Austral.ia in the sense that the benefit has i tsgeograph ic or iq in o r source in Aust ra l ia .

In my respecLTu l op jn i o r , Lh i s subm 'ss i on shod ld be accep red .The word "derived" is defined by the Macquarie Dictionary tomean: "?o receive o:r obtain from a source or or.igin; to traceas from a source or origin... As Hunt CJ at CL observed of ananafogous provision in the proceeds af Crjne Act 1987 lctbJ ,the "o rd ina iy Eng t i sh mean inq (o f ' de r i ved , ) i s to sho r , / neor ig in o f the source o f the th rng sa id to have been der i ved . . .The r , /o rd shou ld be i n te rp re ted in i t s o rd inary sense . ' r SeeDPP (C th ) w Je f fe ry (1992) 58 A Cr in R 310 a t 320 . I dg ree .

The re is no ind ica t ion in the language of the Ac t , and i npa r t i cu fa r s 153(3A) , tha t the i n te rcep t i on prov is ions o f theAct are to be trammelfed with the conplexities which havea t tached to the concep t o f de r i va t i on as a resu lL o f jud ic ia lexegesis of provisions of the Inco&e ?ax Assessnert Act 1936(Cth ) , wh ich a l ]e concerned to i den t i f y the loca le o f therights or activi t ies which caused the production of thetaxable income, or assessable income. Compare tsqujreNoninees Pty Ltd v Federaf Contnissioner of Taxatjon (Ig:'I)1_29CLR 1"t'7

The Act is not concerned with \rhele the co.irunercialexploitation which has produced the benefit has occurred:tha t i s apparen t f rom the ve ry languagre o f s 153 (1 ) . Th i s i sreadily understandable: there may be many acts consti tutingcornne:rcial exploitation which may occur in different places/

10

20

30

.",} 40

50

.'UDGMENT 60


8/9

0203200-t D.1 T15,/Kr"BBNE) M/'t coA35/2001Lhe var ie ty o f loca t ions rd \e re par t i cu la - ac l s occur nav ing

' r l a I n d . u i l h t l - a n 4 l i ^ v w h i . h i n f ^ - m c f h - a ^ F T h a L c h i si s so i s con t i rmed by the c lea r geog -aph i ca l focus i ns l 5 l (3A) o t the AcL upon oene l i Ls "de r i ved in Aus r ra . l i a o rtr:ansferred to Austial ia". This description is apt to catchany bene f i ts sourced f rom, o ] : r ece i ved in , Aus t ra l i a . The re' l s no reason to read down e i the r s 153(1) o r s 153(3A) , byimporting complexities ftom a differ:ent field of discourse.

Fo r these reasons , I am respec t fu l l y o f the op in i on tha t the1ea - rec l D j sL - i c r Cou rL iudge e - .ed jn Lak inq Loo na r row a v 'o l to f s 153(1 ) and , consequent l y , o f the scope o f s 20(1 ) (d ) o fthe Ac t .

I wou ld the re fo re g i ve leave to appea l , a lLon the appeaf andmake o rde rs i n te rms o f Exh ib i t 1 , w i th the add i t ion o f anadd i t iona l d i rec t i on as paragraph l5 in the fo l .Low ing te r rns :

15 . Any consequent ia l p roceed ings are to be b rough t in thetrial division of the Supreme Court.

WIILIAMS JA: I agree. In my vienr, l i terary proceeds weregenerated in Austt al ia in consequence of the publication inAus t ra l i a o f bo th the book and the a r t i c l e . Tha t 1ssufficient to satisfy the test that a bendfit was derived inAusL ra l i a to - r pu rposes o f the reg j s l a t i on .

10

4o-

50

JUDGMENT 60


9/9

02032007 D.1 T15,/K1B BNE) M/r CoA352o\.lI agree nith the reasoning of Keane J, The order sougncshould be made. Any consequential proceedings should bebrough t in the t r ia l d jv is ion o f the Sup- re rneour t .

HELMAN J: I aqree - 10

\.,)

2Q

30

40

50

JUDGMENT 60

Government Book Royalty Seizure

Documents

Transcript of Government Book Royalty Seizure