Professor John Mee:

Yes, but it is at least coherent. If one looks at places that have joint tenancies, like the 50 jurisdictions in America and the 30 to 40 other places, only two or three do what is being suggested. In those jurisdictions in America, people have said that it is unconstitutional. Nobody else does it but at least it is on the list of things one might want to do. What is in the Bill is not on the list of things one might like to do.

The land situation is different, as I was trying to explain. There is a complexity there with regard to land. The worst that could have been done to the killer was that it would have lasted for the rest of his or her life. We do not know when the victim would have died but we know that the killer could never have lost out until he or she died. If the killer is in jail and alive for another 30 or 40 years and one takes the property from him or her, one is clearly putting the killer in a worse situation in terms of pre-existing property rights than he or she would have been in. People are casting around for ways to punish the killer and the best they have come up with is to give him or her the property for the duration of his or her life and to take it from the killer then. If one takes the property from the killer now, one is clearly punishing him or her.

An important question was asked about the application. In any situation, there will have to be an application, even under section 120. The law-----