4 May 1994
Appeal allowed because the excavator belonged to a wholly innocent owner who had taken some precautions, could not reasonably have foreseen its use for smuggling, and forfeiture in those circumstances would be a gross and unjust deprivation; the magistrate misapplied the discretion under s.28(7).
20 Apr 1993
The Court overruled A.G. v. Chin Chack-wing and held that where s.28(7) confers an unfettered discretion to order forfeiture the magistrate must approach the question from a neutral starting point, require each party to prove asserted facts on the balance of probabilities if not admitted, and decide whether to forfeit by reference to what is just in all the circumstances proved or admitted; the magistrate's forfeiture order was set aside and the matter remitted for reconsideration in accordance with this approach.
19 Aug 1985
The correct test is that a forfeiture order will stand unless the claimant proves on the balance of probabilities some good reason why it should not be made; where claimants are blameless the magistrate should exercise discretion in their favour, and on that basis the forfeiture order was set aside.