Roberts v Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions; Durston v Commonwealth Director of Public Prosections

In *Roberts v Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions* and *Durston v Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions*, the High Court of Australia considered appeals from decisions of the Full Federal Court. The central dispute concerned the interpretation and application of s 16(2) of the *Proceeds of Crime Act 2002* (Cth) (the Act), which deals with the forfeiture of property that has been used in or derived from the commission of certain offences. The applicants sought to challenge the validity of forfeiture orders made against their property.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether s 16(2) of the Act required the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP) to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the property in question was *in fact* used in or derived from the commission of an offence, or whether it was sufficient for the CDPP to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the property was so used or derived. This distinction was critical to the determination of whether the forfeiture orders were lawfully made.

Hayne J, delivering the judgment of the Court, held that s 16(2) of the Act does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt. His Honour reasoned that the language of the provision, particularly the phrase "reasonable grounds to believe," indicates a standard of proof that is less than that required for criminal conviction. The Court affirmed that the CDPP need only establish, on the balance of probabilities, that reasonable grounds exist to believe the property is tainted. This interpretation aligns with the civil nature of forfeiture proceedings under the Act, which do not require the same level of certainty as criminal guilt.

The appeals were accordingly dismissed.