The Court held that a person convicted of knowingly taking part in the manufacture of prohibited drugs by providing premises under the extended definition in s 6 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 has necessarily 'engaged in' serious crime related activity for the purposes of s 9B(2)(a) of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990, regardless of the passivity of their conduct, low culpability, or absence of material benefit. The Court further held that s 22(2B) of the Act is mandatory and confers no residual discretion to refuse an assets forfeiture order once the statutory preconditions are met, distinguishing Re Davis and George on the basis that the legislative scheme — including the deliberate 2016 restriction of ameliorative provisions in ss 25 and 26 for serious crime use property, the express provision in s 4(5) against reading duties as discretions, and the contrast with the express discretion in s 28A(4) — confirmed Parliament's intention to impose an obligation. The Court noted in obiter that had a discretion existed, it would have been exercised against making the order given the complete disproportionality to the offending.
The full text is available to signed-in members.