Just as cirrocumulus stratiformis clouds are
broadly similar to cirrus spissatus
undulatus clouds, and most of us don’t really pay much heed to the
difference between them, so too is Milne
v The Queen [2014] HCA 4
(14 February 2014) broadly similar to Richardson
v DPP [2014] UKSC 8, discussed here
on 7 February 2014.
Both cases take
a purposive interpretation of specific legislation. In Milne an exchange of property with intent to conceal the profit to
avoid paying tax did not make the property an “instrument of crime” for the
purposes of s 400.3(1) of the Criminal
Code (Cth). The property disposed of was not thereafter “used” in the
commission of a relevant offence.
Not too far
removed from a hypothetical considered in Richardson:
the shop’s lawful activity of selling soap would not have been made unlawful if
a sales assistant were being paid below the minimum wage.
