Meskovski v DPP

Meskovski was before the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the applicant sought relief from a civil forfeiture order made under the Confiscation Act 1997. The central issue was whether the court had the discretion to relieve from "undue hardship" caused by such an order, and if so, whether the same threshold test applied to the court's alternative powers to exclude property or order a specified payment. The applicant argued that the forfeiture of his half interest in the family home, used in the commission of an offence, would cause undue hardship, especially considering the gravity of the offending. The court considered the statutory interpretation of "undue hardship" and whether the amendments to the Act, which substituted this term for "hardship," indicated a legislative intent to change the meaning of the provision.

The court examined the legislative history and noted that the amendments did not explicitly indicate an intention to alter the threshold test. It relied on previous case law, including Finance Facilities Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation, to conclude that the term "undue hardship" should be interpreted consistently across the Act. The court further affirmed Ali v Director of Public Prosecutions, finding that the threshold for undue hardship was not met in this case. The applicant's appeal for relief was dismissed, and leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal was granted.

The court's reasoning focused on the balance between the deterrence purposes of civil forfeiture and the protection of innocent parties from undue hardship. It held that the legislative amendments did not change the established threshold for relief, and the applicant's circumstances did not meet the criteria for undue hardship. The final orders of the court maintained the forfeiture of the applicant's half interest in the family home, despite the hardship caused.