DEAD 'CRIMINAL' TO PAY UP

THE State Government has the Supreme Court's approval to keep more than
$250,000 in assets from the estate of a man who died before he could stand
trial over a big cannabis operation

Stephen Retteghy, 67, of Hillarys, has been deemed to have been convicted of
two serious charges, despite the fact he pleaded not guilty and had intended
to go to trial when he died from cancer in August 1997.

Retteghy's estate has been ordered to forfeit to the Director of Public
Prosecutions about 2ha of land in Guilderton worth $94,000 and a $15,000
Honda Prelude car allegedly used in the drug business, and to forfeit other
assets to make up the total $250,750 proceeds of Retteghy's crime.

Retteghy's assets, including his home in Fenton Way, Hillarys, a Nissan
Patrol wagon, money in several bank accounts, stocks and shares have been
the subject of Supreme Court restraining orders since he was charged with
cultivating cannabis with intent to sell or supply and possession of
cannabis with intent.

Police raided his Nicklaus Avenue property in Guilderton in April 1996 and
found a cannabis growing and harvesting business.

The executor of Retteghy's estate, lawyer Stuart Silbert, submitted that the
posthumous conviction had denied Retteghy a fair trial and he could not
clear his name.

Mr Silbert opposed forfeiture orders sought by the DPP on the grounds that
the Crimes Confiscation and Profits Act 1988 was unconstitutional because it
gave Parliament the power to convict, which usurped judicial power.

Under the Act, a person is taken to have been convicted of a serious offence
if they die after they have been arrested.

But Justice Graeme Scott said the argument was based on a false premise
because the person was taken only to have been convicted for the purposes of
the Act.

Justice Scott said he was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt on the evidence
that Retteghy had used the Guilderton land to cultivate and process cannabis
on a significant scale.

The Honda Prelude had traces of cannabis in the boot consistent with it
being used to transport the drug, he said.

"When interviewed on videotape, the deceased readily acknowledged his
involvement in the cultivation of cannabis on the property, although he
denied any intention to sell the cannabis grown," Justice Scott said.

He said $250,750 of Retteghy's income could not be accounted for and
analysis of seized diaries showed a close relationship between cannabis
sales and bank deposits. The diaries listed cannabis sales of $265,100
between July 1993 and April 1996.

"The evidence establishes the deceased profited from the sale of illegal
drugs at least to the sum of $250,750, being the lesser of the two figures,"
he said.