Dickfoss v DPP & Ors

[2012] NTCA 1

NT Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Property Forfeiture
2. › Crime-used property
3. › Meaning of 'in connection with' in s 11(1)(c)
4. › Whether connection must be 'direct and immediate' or 'substantial'
5. › Whether acts of growing, harvesting, drying and storing cannabis on land constituted sufficient connection
6. › Criminal Property Forfeiture Act (NT), s 11(1)(c)
1. Statutory Interpretation
2. › Criminal Property Forfeiture Act (NT)
3. › Restraining orders
4. › Obligation to set out grounds in order
5. › Whether grounds require particularisation of forfeiture offence and limb of definition relied upon
6. › Criminal Property Forfeiture Act (NT), s 45(1)(b)
1. Constitutional Law (Cth)
2. › Acquisition of property
3. › Northern Territory legislation
4. › Whether criminal property forfeiture legislation is a law with respect to acquisition of property otherwise than on just terms
5. › Whether forfeiture of crime-used property falls outside guarantee of just terms
6. › Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978 (Cth), s 50(1)
1. Constitutional Law (Cth)
2. › Kable principle
3. › Institutional integrity of courts
4. › Whether mandatory forfeiture provisions impair institutional integrity of Supreme Court
5. › Whether absence of judicial discretion incompatible with judicial function
6. › Criminal Property Forfeiture Act (NT), s 96(1)

Quick Take

The expression 'in connection with' in s 11(1)(c) of the Criminal Property Forfeiture Act (NT) does not require a 'substantial' or 'direct and immediate' connection between acts on property and the forfeiture offence; the requisite relationship is a matter of degree and judgment falling between the extremes of direct/immediate and remote/tenuous. A restraining order under s 45(1)(b) need only identify the statutory grounds, not particularise the forfeiture offence or material facts. The Act is not invalid as a law with respect to acquisition of property otherwise than on just terms, nor does it infringe the Kable principle.