Ruhani v Director of Police

In *Ruhani v Director of Police*, the High Court of Australia considered an appeal from a decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The appellant, Mr. Ruhani, sought to challenge the validity of a notice issued by the Director of Police under s 11(1) of the *Crimes (Confiscation of Profits) Act 1986* (Vic) (the Act). This notice purported to restrain property believed to be the proceeds of, or otherwise related to, serious indictable offences. Mr. Ruhani contended that the notice was invalid because the Director of Police had not properly formed the requisite belief that the property was tainted property as defined by the Act.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the Director of Police had a sufficient evidentiary basis to form the belief required by s 11(1) of the Act. Specifically, the Court had to determine the nature and quality of the information that must be before the Director to justify the issuance of a restraining notice, and whether the information provided in this instance met that standard. This involved an examination of the statutory language and the principles governing the exercise of executive power in relation to property rights.

The High Court, in allowing the appeal, held that the belief required by s 11(1) must be one that is reasonably open to the Director on the material before them. Mere suspicion or a general belief that offences may have occurred was insufficient. The Court found that the material presented to the Director in this case did not establish a sufficient connection between the restrained property and the alleged serious indictable offences. Consequently, the Director had not been in a position to form the necessary belief that the property was tainted property, rendering the restraining notice invalid. The High Court ordered that the appeal be allowed and the restraining notice be set aside.