DPP v Le (No 2)

In the case of DPP v Le (No 2), the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) sought an order for the forfeiture of certain property as it was connected to criminal activity. The defendant, Le, applied to exclude the property from automatic forfeiture. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The central legal issue the court had to address was whether it was precluded by section 133A of the Confiscation Act 1997 from awarding costs to the successful applicant for an order excluding the property from automatic forfeiture. This issue necessitated a consideration of the interplay between section 133A of the Confiscation Act and section 24(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1986.

The court examined the statutory framework and referenced the decision in Rose v Hvric (1963) 108 CLR 353 to interpret the relevant legislative provisions. It concluded that section 133A of the Confiscation Act 1997 did not preclude the court from awarding costs to the successful applicant under section 24(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1986. The court reasoned that the purpose of section 133A was to ensure that the costs of proceedings do not fall upon the successful applicant but does not extend to preventing the awarding of costs to the successful party in exclusion proceedings. The court found that the successful applicant was entitled to costs in accordance with section 24(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1986.

The court ordered that the defendant, Le, was entitled to costs in the exclusion proceedings. The exact amount of costs was to be determined in accordance with the rules of court. This decision clarified the scope of section 133A of the Confiscation Act 1997 in relation to the awarding of costs and reinforced the principle that successful applicants in exclusion proceedings may be awarded costs.