Navarolli here to stay – but has it lost its punch?
The High Court today refused the DPP leave to appeal against the decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal in Navarolli v DPP [2005] VSCA 323.
The effect of the decision of the Court of Appeal in Navarolli is that persons whose property is sought to be restrained by the DPP under the Confiscation Act 1997 are entitled to be heard before the restraining order is made “final”.
This occurs by granting the DPP restraining orders on an ex parte basis and then permitting persons with an interest in restrained property to make submissions in relation to the continuation of the relevant restraining order.
It appears that the primary reason for refusing the DPP leave to appeal was the fact that the Navarolli litigation is still not finally determined before the Trial Division of the Supreme Court.
In fact, comments from the High Court in refusing the application for leave to appeal suggest that the High Court may favour an interpretation of the Confiscation Act 1997 which denies persons whose property is to be restrained from being heard at the time the restraining order is made.
No doubt this issue will receive further judicial consideration in the not too distant future.
