Under s 11(1)(c) of the Criminal Property Forfeiture Act 2002 (NT), the connection between the property and the forfeiture offence must be 'direct and immediate'; mere presence on the land to commit an offence is insufficient, but control over the property that facilitates possession of prohibited substances may suffice. The court has no discretion under s 96(1) to refuse a forfeiture order once the criteria are met, but retains an unfettered equitable discretion at the restraining order stage. The burden of proof shifts from the objector at the objection stage to the DPP at the forfeiture application stage, with the Briginshaw standard applying. The NT criminal property forfeiture regime is constitutionally valid.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 7 later cases that cite this judgment.