A Perth mother has lost her legal fight aganst the seizure of her family's $900,000 home under the state's tough property confiscation laws.

The woman, who is not identified, owned the Lesmurdie home with her husband who was convicted of cultivating cannabis in a shed on the property.

He was fined $6,000 but the state then sought to confiscate the house where the couple live with their two sons aged six and nine.

The woman says she knew nothing about her husband's activities and argued in the Supreme Court she and her sons would suffer undue hardship if they lost the house.

Justice Michael Murray accepted the woman and her children were innocent parties but rejected her attempts to put a stop the seizure.

He did order that the woman receive payment for her half share in the house when it is sold.

Lawyers for the woman are considering appealing against the court ruling.

Draconian

The president of WA's Law Society says the state's crime confiscation laws are the most draconian in the country and are unduly punishing innocent third parties.

Hylton Quail says the state's tough property confiscation laws are unfair and need to be amended.

"There have been a number of instances where innocent third parties have found themselves in a terrible situation in danger of losing property through no fault of their own but this Government and the last Government have done nothing about it," he said.

"The criminal property confiscation laws in Western Australia are the most draconian in the country, in fact, some would say the most draconian in the world.

"There are no proper protections for innocent third parties and the law needs to be changed."

The State Opposition has backed the calls for amendments.

The Shadow Attorney General John Quigley says the laws should change.

"If you allowed a discretion to exist within the courts to look at justice, I think the problem could be largely alleviated," he said.

In a statement, the Attorney General Christian Porter says only the offender's half of the property will be confiscated but he concedes the laws will impact on the wife.

Life savings

The Law Society president spoke out earlier this month after the High Court ruled that convicted murderer Gary Ernest White's life savings of $135,000 would be seized.

The bikie associate is serving a life sentence for the wilful murder of Anthony Tapley at a trucking yard in Maddington in 2001.

The Director of Public Prosecutions wanted to seize the trucking yard but was prevented from doing so after it was revealed White did not own the property.

The DPP then applied to confiscate his bank savings of $135,000 as a substitute and a full bench of the High Court ruled the DPP could do so.

At the time, Mr Quail told the ABC that the law was dated and unfair.

"I've got clients for example who have committed admittedly serious criminal offences on a property which they own; in one instance within the confines of a winery which a person had built up over their entire lives," he said.

"And, at the age of 65 now stands to lose the whole winery because an offence was committed in the winery."

White's lawyer Gary Massey also said that the laws were draconian.

"People who commit crimes get rightly punished for the commission of a crime but to then have your assets forfeited on top seems to me to be a law we really don't need," he said.

Mr Massey said the decision had widespread ramifications because anyone convicted of a serious offence could now lose their assets.

"It's gone one step further because there were certain criteria that had to be met under the Act before you could have your assets forfeited; for example, you'd have had to use your property in the commission of an offence or alternatively been convicted of an offence which left yourself open to being a drug trafficker," he said.

"What you now have is that you not only use your property in the commission of an offence but if you use someone ele's property in the commission of an offence then you leave yourself open to having your own assets seized."