On 20 July 2012, the Court of Appeal (Warren CJ, Buchanan AP and Beach AJA) delivered the decision in DPP v Judith Moran.
By that decision, the Court of Appeal has now for the second time in six months
provided guidance on how the expression “used in or in connection with” is to be
construed for the purposes of the Confiscation Act.
In that case, the relevant issue was whether a house at Ascot Vale was used in or in connection with the murder of Desmond Moran. If so, it would constitute “tainted property” and was liable to discretionary forfeiture under the Confiscation Act.
The killer, Armour, had lived with Judith Moran at the Ascot Vale property for about six weeks before the killing. Armour was driven to the location of the murder and, after killing Desmond Moran, Judith Moran concealed the vehicle used to convey him in the garage of the property and hid a number of items used in the murder, including the gun and a wig, in a safe at the Ascot Vale property. Further, the Ascot Vale property was security for a loan was used to purchase a vehicle which was given to Armour for his use.
In reaching the conclusion that the Ascot Vale property was not used in connection with the murder, the Court of Appeal quoted extensively from its recent decision in Chalmers v R. A newsletter in relation to that decision can be downloaded from the Newsletters section of this site.
