Director of Public Prosecutions v Close

The Director of Public Prosecutions sought confiscation of criminal assets from two defendants, Close and another. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The dispute centred around the interpretation of the term "property" in section 31 of the Confiscation of Criminal Assets Act 2003 (ACT), whether the proceedings violated the defendants’ human rights, and whether sections 31 and 58 of the Act were ultra vires the ACT legislature.

The primary legal issue was whether the term "property" in section 31 of the Confiscation of Criminal Assets Act 2003 (ACT) encompasses both legal and equitable interests. The court also had to determine if the making of a restraining order or automatic forfeiture order in relation to the defendants' home constituted unlawful or arbitrary interference with their property, as per section 12 of the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT). Additionally, the court examined whether sections 31 and 58 of the Act were beyond the legislative power of the ACT and whether they unconstitutionally limited the discretion of a court exercising federal judicial power.

The Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory found that "property" in section 31 of the Confiscation of Criminal Assets Act 2003 (ACT) includes both legal and equitable interests. The court held that the proceedings did not constitute unlawful or arbitrary interference with the defendants' property under section 12 of the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT). Furthermore, the court concluded that sections 31 and 58 of the Act were within the legislative power of the ACT and did not impermissibly constrain the discretion of a court exercising federal judicial power.

The Director of Public Prosecutions was ordered to pay costs. The court granted a declaration that sections 31 and 58 of the Confiscation of Criminal Assets Act 2003 (ACT) were not invalid due to inconsistency with the Australian Constitution.