Pubdate: Sat, 11 Oct 2003
Source: West Australian (Australia)
Copyright: 2003 West Australian Newspapers Limited
Contact:  http://www.thewest.com.au
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/495
Author: Sean Cowan

ASSETS LAW COULD BECOME LIABILITY

WA'S tough criminal property confiscation laws could be headed for a raft 
of High Court challenges.

The laws, passed three years ago, are considered the toughest in the 
country, stripping millions of dollars of assets mainly from convicted drug 
dealers.

But a High Court challenge to the previous laws could force the State 
Government to review several parts of the current legislation or fight off 
constitutional challenges.

In December, the full bench of the High Court will hear an appeal against 
the since-repealed WA confiscation law which saw the State take $250,000 
from a dead man.  Stephen Retteghy was charged after police raided his 
Guilderton property in 1996 and found almost 600 cannabis plants, more than 
30kg of harvested cannabis and a diary detailing drug sales.

He pleaded not guilty to drug dealing and was committed to stand trial, but 
died of cancer aged 67.

Under the old Crimes (Confiscation of Profits) Act, a dead man was taken to 
have absconded.  In the eyes of the law, this meant he could be considered 
guilty and his assets could be forfeited.

Lawyers for the executor of Mr Retteghy's estate have asked the High Court 
to find the law unconstitutional because the dead man effectively had been 
found guilty without trial.  The Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000 
includes a similar provision.

University of Notre Dame law lecturer Ben Clarke said the action could 
spark several constitutional challenges.  Other cases include the 
confiscation of a pensioner's Yangebup property.

While Graham Smith could prove he had paid legitimately for the home over 
17 years, it was forfeited because he had grown 20 cannabis plants in his 
backyard.  He was declared a drug trafficker - which entitled the State to 
seize his assets.

Multi-millionaire Matthew Telling kept his assets after pleading guilty to 
possessing 16g of ecstasy, but if he had had 12 more he would have been 
declared a trafficker, despite his wealth being inherited.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Keith Brilhart