Le v Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic)

In Le v Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic), the respondent, the Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic), sought an order for the confiscation of a residential property under the Confiscation Act 1997. The property was used by the applicant, Le, to grow cannabis for commercial purposes. The wife of the applicant, who was the registered owner of the property, sought an exclusion order to exclude herself from the confiscation order. The court had to decide whether the wife was involved in any way in the commission of the offence and whether knowledge of the elements of the offence was necessary to be involved in the offence. The court also had to determine whether knowledge included wilful blindness and who bore the onus of proof.

The court considered whether the wife was involved in any way in the commission of the offence. The court noted that involvement in an offence could be direct or indirect and that knowledge of the elements of the offence was not necessary to be involved. The court held that the onus of proof was on the applicant to establish that the wife was not involved in any way in the commission of the offence. The court also held that knowledge could include wilful blindness. The court was not satisfied that the wife was not involved in any way in the commission of the offence and therefore denied the wife's application for an exclusion order.

The court's reasoning was based on the case of DPP Reference No 1 of 2004, R v Nguyen, which held that involvement in an offence could be direct or indirect and that knowledge of the elements of the offence was not necessary to be involved. The court also applied the case of Giorgianni v The Queen, which held that the onus of proof was on the applicant to establish that the wife was not involved in any way in the commission of the offence. The court also referred to the case of DPP (C’th) v Edy, which held that knowledge could include wilful blindness. The court's decision was based on the evidence before it and the relevant legal principles.

The final order of the court was that the wife's application for an exclusion order was denied. The property was therefore subject to automatic forfeiture under the Confiscation Act 1997. The court held that the wife was involved in the commission of the offence and that the onus of proof was on the applicant to establish otherwise. The court also held that knowledge could include wilful blindness and that the wife had failed to establish that she was not involved in any way in the commission of the offence.