White v Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)

The appeal concerned the interpretation of the *Criminal Property Confiscation Act 2000* (WA) and specifically the conditions under which a "crime-used property substitution declaration" could be made. The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) sought such a declaration against the appellant concerning premises leased by him. It was not disputed that the premises were "crime-used" within the meaning of s 146(1)(c) of the Act, nor that the property was unavailable for confiscation. The central dispute revolved around whether the appellant had made "criminal use" of the premises as required by s 147 of the Act, which is a prerequisite for the declaration under s 22.

The High Court was required to determine whether the definition of "criminal use" in s 147 of the Act encompassed conduct falling within the definition of "crime-used" in s 146(1)(c). Section 146(1)(c) defines property as "crime-used" if any act or omission done, omitted to be done, or facilitated in or on the property in connection with the commission of a confiscation offence. Section 147 defines "criminal use" as using or intending to use property in a way that brings it within the definition of crime-used property. The appellant argued that conduct captured solely by s 146(1)(c) did not constitute "criminal use" under s 147.

The High Court reasoned that while the ordinary meaning of "use" might suggest a narrower scope, the phrase "in connection with" in s 146(1)(c) indicated a broad relationship between the acts or omissions on the property and the commission of a confiscation offence. The Court concluded that, in purpose and context, the conduct described in s 146(1)(c) could be brought within the meaning of "makes criminal use of property" in s 147 without doing violence to the language of the latter section. Therefore, the conditions for making a crime-used property substitution declaration were satisfied.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.