Where a residential property has been used on multiple occasions in connection with serious drug trafficking offences, hardship to the respondent from loss of the property will have very little influence on the exercise of the discretion to restrain under ss 43(2) and 44(1) of the Criminal Property Forfeiture Act (NT), and restraint is the almost inevitable consequence. Equitable principles of disproportionate prejudice from interlocutory injunction applications have limited relevance where the respondent has been convicted and the facts are established.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.