Report 14 February 2020 South Australian Law Reform Institute RIDDLES, MYSTERIES AND ENIGMAS: THE COMMON LAW FORFEITURE RULE The South Australian Law Reform Institute was established in December 2010 by agreement between the Attorney-General of South Australia, the University of Adelaide and the Law Society of South Australia. It is based at the Adelaide University Law School. Postal address: SA Law Reform Institute Adelaide Law School University of Adelaide North Terrace Australia 5005 Telephone: (08) 8313 5582 Email: [email protected] Website: http://law.adelaide.edu.au/research/south -australian-law-reform-institute Publications: SALRI publications, including this Report, are available to download free of charge from the SALRI webpage under Publications: Reports and Papers. Suggested citation: Sylvia Villios, David Plater, Olivia Jay, Terry Evans and Emily Ireland, Riddles, Mysteries and Enigmas: The Common Law Forfeiture Rule (South Australian Law Reform Institute, Adelaide, 2020) Terms of reference In September 2011, the then South Australian Attorney-General, the Hon John Rau MP, asked the South Australian Law Reform Institute (SALRI) to review the role and application of the common law forfeiture rule and any need for legislative intervention in South Australia. The Attorney-General drew the attention of SALRI to a suggestion that there was for a need for a new law to permit the common law forfeiture rule to be mitigated. The present Attorney-General, the Hon Vickie Chapman MP, supported SALRI undertaking this reference. SALRI has not been able until now to undertake this reference owing to other commitments and the need to first complete its major references into various aspects of succession law, as well as provocation and other defences to murder and related issues (notably the domestic violence implications of the present law in this area). These references provide the necessary background and context to this review of the common law forfeiture rule. Participants South Australian Law Reform Institute Director Professor John Williams Deputy Director Dr David Plater Advisory Board Professor John Williams (Chair) The Hon David Bleby QC Professor Melissa de Zwart Mr Terry Evans Mr Stephen McDonald Mr Dini Soulio The Hon Justice Tim Stanley Ms Aimee Travers Administrative Officer Louise Scarman Project Officers / Researchers Olivia Jay Anita Brunacci Acknowledgements This Report was written by Dr Sylvia Villios, Dr David Plater, Olivia Jay, Terry Evans and Emily Ireland with valuable input from Professor John Williams, the Hon David Bleby QC and the students of the 2012, 2016, 2017 and 2018 Law Reform courses at the University of Adelaide. SALRI acknowledges, in particular, the contributions of the following students: Joshua Aikens, Alex Falcinella, Isabelle Gatley, Stamatina Halikias, Charles Hamra, Sophie Howe, Nicholas Munday and Rebecca Scarabotti. Louise Scarman, Holly Nicholls, Joshua Aikens and Professor John Williams provided proofreading and editorial assistance. SALRI particularly acknowledges the valuable contribution to this Report of the late Helen Wighton, the founding Deputy Director of SALRI. SALRI also acknowledges the contributions of Professor Gino Dal Pont of the University of Tasmania, Dr Xianlu Zeng of the University of South Australia, Emily Sims and Anita Brunacci. SALRI also acknowledges the input of its Advisory Board to this reference. On several issues there was no simple solution and the Board’s input proved especially valuable. SALRI is grateful for the many insightful submissions received in relation to this reference. Disclaimer This Report deals with the law as of 29 February 2020 and may not necessarily represent the current law. Any views expressed in this Report are those of the South Australian Law Reform Institute and no other agency. Contents Abbreviations and Glossary…………………………………………………………..………………i Preface……………………………………………………………………………….……………........v Summary of Recommendations……………………………………………………………..……...xiii Part 1 - Background…………………………………………………………………………………...1 The South Australian Law Reform Institute ................................................................................. 1 The Common Law Forfeiture Rule reference ............................................................................... 2 Consultation Approach ................................................................................................................. 6 Scope and Operation of the Common Law Forfeiture Rule ......................................................... 8 Broad Policy Considerations ...................................................................................................... 16 Part 2 – History of the Common Law Forfeiture Rule………..…………………………………...17 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 17 Origins of Forfeiture for Treason and Felony ............................................................................. 18 Origins of Public Policy that a Criminal Should Not Benefit from His Crime .......................... 26 SALRI's Observations and Conclusions ..................................................................................... 37 Part 3 - Reform of the Common Law Forfeiture Rule……………………………..…...…………40 The Adoption of the Common Law Forfeiture Rule in Australia ............................................... 40 The Discretionary Approach ....................................................................................................... 40 The Reinstatement of the Absolute Approach ............................................................................ 42 Current South Australian Position .............................................................................................. 44 Issues .......................................................................................................................................... 46 Consultation Data Overview: Is there a Need for Reform? ........................................................ 61 SALRI’s Observations and Conclusions .................................................................................... 64 Part 4 - Models for Legislative Reform……………………..……………………….………….…..66 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 66 The Discretionary Model ............................................................................................................ 67 The Codification Model .............................................................................................................. 76 The Hybrid Model ...................................................................................................................... 79 Issues .......................................................................................................................................... 79 Consultation Data Overview: Which Model Should we Adopt in SA? ...................................... 83 SALRI’s Observations and Conclusions .................................................................................... 88 Part 5 – Scope of the Forfeiture Rule……………………………..………………………………...91 Excluding Murder from Modification ........................................................................................ 91 Mental Impairment ..................................................................................................................... 98 Conviction Overturned ............................................................................................................. 106 Unfit to Plead ............................................................................................................................ 110 Unlawful Killings in Civil Proceedings: the OJ Simpson Scenario ......................................... 114 Imposing Conditions in the Forfeiture Modification Order ...................................................... 121 Protecting the Property of the Deceased Victim from Dissipation ........................................... 123 Part 6 – Modification of the Common Law Forfeiture Rule…………………..…………………131 Classes of Unlawful Killing where Modification may be Appropriate .................................... 131 Consultation Data Overview: In Which Classes of Unlawful Killing Would Modification of the Forfeiture Rule be Appropriate? ............................................................................................... 156 SALRI's Observations and Conclusions ................................................................................... 168 Exercise of Judicial Discretion ................................................................................................. 173 Status to Apply for a Modification Order ................................................................................. 184 Time Limits on Applying for a Modification Order ................................................................. 185 Judge to Preside Over Forfeiture Proceedings .......................................................................... 188 Part 7 – The Effect of the Forfeiture Rule……………………………………………..……….....191 Codifying the Effect of the Forfeiture Rule .............................................................................. 191 Executors, Administrators and Trustees ................................................................................... 195 The Deceased Victim