Page 3526 - Week 12 - Thursday, 19 September 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
FORFEITURE BILL 1991
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (12.17): Mr Acting Speaker, I present the Forfeiture Bill 1991. I move:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
Mr Acting Speaker, the purpose of the Forfeiture Bill 1991 is to confer on the Supreme Court the power to modify the effect of the common law forfeiture rule in cases where the courts consider it just in all the circumstances to take that action.
The forfeiture rule is a long-established legal principle which, broadly stated, provides that a person who unlawfully kills another is not entitled to enjoy any property which he or she would otherwise have acquired as a result of that death. It is a principle which has been applied by the courts over the years as one means of expressing the community's general abhorrence of the unlawful taking of a human life. As an example, the rule has been employed to deprive murderers of the right to benefit under their victims' wills, or upon their victims' intestacy. The rule has also been employed in cases of manslaughter.
This Bill recognises, however, that there are circumstances in which the rule can operate harshly. For example, there may be cases in family situations where a death occurs as the result of the actions of a battered spouse in instances of domestic violence. In circumstances of this kind the courts have not always produced consistent rulings, in part because of the constraints which have been imposed by the perceived wide ambit of the forfeiture rule. The Forfeiture Bill aims to remove the doubt surrounding this kind of case and to ensure that the question of moral culpability is one which can be fully taken into account by the courts when assessing a claim against the deceased's property.
Beyond the general provision empowering the court to modify the effect of the forfeiture rule in appropriate circumstances, the Bill goes on to provide for a small number of matters of detail. Principal among these is that nothing in the Bill is to affect the application of the forfeiture rule in the case of a person who stands convicted of murder, as opposed to manslaughter. In addition, to secure a measure of certainty in the distribution of estates, the Bill also provides that in cases where a person is convicted of an unlawful killing - not being murder - he or she will have three months in which to make a claim for relief from the effect of the rule.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .