Lam v The Queen

The case of Lam v The Queen involved a defendant who was acquitted by direction of conspiracy to possess heroin with intent to sell or supply. During the course of the investigation, a substantial amount of money was seized from the defendant's courier. The central issue before the court was whether the court of trial retained jurisdiction to order the forfeiture of this money to the Crown, and if so, what evidential standards were required to do so.

The legal issues the court had to address included the interpretation of statutory provisions concerning the forfeiture of proceeds of crime, and the applicable standards of proof for such an order. The court considered whether the acquittal of the defendant on the criminal charges negated the court's ability to order the forfeiture of the money, and what burden of proof was applicable in such circumstances. The court had to balance the defendant's rights with the statutory powers intended to combat the proceeds of criminal activity.

In its reasoning, the court determined that the acquittal of the defendant on the criminal charges did not preclude the court from considering the forfeiture of the money. The court held that the statutory power to order forfeiture was distinct from the criminal charge and could be exercised independently. The court found that the standard of proof required for such a forfeiture was not the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt but rather the civil standard of the balance of probabilities. Consequently, the court found that the Crown had met this lower burden of proof and ordered the forfeiture of the money to the Crown.