THE expression “a man’s home is his castle”, gender bias aside, strikes a chord with all homeowners.

The highly popular movie The Castle has left us with enduring images of Darryl Kerrigan, a battling but immensely proud homeowner, taking on the government and winning the right to keep his modest home from being compulsorily acquired.

Under the State Government’s Prescribed Drug Offenders Bill, Darryl would have no chance of keeping his home if he was convicted of three so-called serious drug offences in 10 years, or one very serious drug offence.

The Government would confiscate his home and all his other assets (except bare essentials), sell them and keep the proceeds. This would happen even though Darryl paid for his assets legitimately and did not make any money out of his crimes.

It is difficult to believe that such a law could be contemplated in a free society which applies the rule of law and encourages its citizens to be self-sufficient.

The Law Society has written to the Government opposing the Bill because it is unfair and unjust. People should not be deprived of their lawfully acquired assets just because they commit an offence which they are punished for anyway. This amounts to an infringement on the person’s civil liberties of the most substantial kind. The Bill also offends the longstanding rule against double punishment.

Quite apart from the palpable unfairness to the person, the Bill even more harshly deprives the person’s family, including children, of the assets. They too would become victims of an unjust and unconscionable law.

The Bill is also discriminatory in that those who are industrious and acquire assets suffer a far greater punishment than those who have no assets. All offenders should be treated equally, especially when the assets have no connection to the offending.

It is not as if the Government does not have enough power to deprive people of their ill-gotten gains. The current confiscation laws are comprehensive and far-reaching. They not only deprive offenders the proceeds of their crime but also of any assets used to commit the crime (such as a boat or car). The Government confiscates substantial sums of money each year through these laws.

In addition, relatively recent laws go even further. The “unexplained wealth” laws enable a court to order confiscation of a person’s assets if the DPP reasonably suspects that they have not been lawfully acquired and the person cannot explain how they were acquired.

These existing laws are more than sufficient for the authorities to acquire the assets suspected of being the proceeds or instruments of crime.

The Prescribed Drug Offenders Bill will again be before Parliament next week. The Government has tried on four occasions to have it made law but failed.

It is the type of persistence we admired in Darryl Kerrigan. Darryl’s persistence paid off. For the sake of fairness, and to avoid injustice, I trust the Government’s persistence does not.

Rocco Perrotta is SA Law Society president