DEATH IS GUILT IN EYES OF THE LAW

THE High Court has refused to stop the State from confiscating $250,000 in
assets from an accused cannabis grower who died before getting the chance
to defend himself in court.

Stephen Retteghy, 67, of Hillarys, was awaiting trial on charges of
cultivating cannabis and possessing cannabis, both with intent to sell or
supply, when he died of cancer in August 1997.

But under the since-repealed Crimes (Confiscation of Profits) Act, a dead
man was taken to have absconded. In the eyes of the law, this meant Mr
Retteghy could be considered guilty and his assets forfeited.

A similar provision is in the State's current property confiscation laws,
which are considered the toughest in Australia.

On Tuesday, the Full Bench of the High Court refused to grant special leave
to lawyers for Mr Rettegy's estate to appeal against the forfeiture.

Michael Buss QC had told the court that it was unconstituional for the
facts and issues of a case to be determined by legislation.

Cheif Justice Murray Gleeson said the judges would publish their reasons at
a later date.

Last year, the State Full Court was told the legislation was
unconstituional and gave Mr Retteghy no avenue of appeal against conviction.

But in a 2:1 decision, Justices Neville Owen and Christohper Steytler
rejected the submissions, saying Mr Retteghy was found guilty only for the
purposes of the confiscation legislation.

The dissenting judge, Justice Henry Wallwork, said he would allow the
appeal because the case was based on an irrational presumption that Mr
Retteghy was guilty due to the fact he was dead.

Mr Retteghy was charged after police raided his property at Guilderton,
north of Perth, in April 1996 and found almost 600 cannabis plants, more
than 30kg of harvested cannabis and a diary detailing drug sales.

The 2ha property and a Honda Prelude car were among the forfeited assets.

Earlier this year during the special leave application, High Court Justice
Michael Kirby said the State had gone back to the 16th century.

Justice Kirby said it was reminiscent of the centuries-old notion of
corruption of blood in that it stood to rob dependants of the deceased of
entitlements they would otherwise have.

Many Australians would see it as a serious slur on someone's honour and
that of their family to be deemed guilty beyond the grave.

The notion ought to be reversed. "We are going backwards," he said.

The application was put off until last Tuesday when it was argued as if it
were a full appeal.

Justice Kirby was one of the judges to hear the case but Justice Gleeson
said a majority of the bench had dismissed the application.