Le v The Queen

The respondents, Le and another, were convicted for conspiracy to import a commercial quantity of a border-controlled drug. The case reached the High Court of Australia. The primary legal issue was whether the Crown was required to prove that the respondents had the intention to import a commercial quantity of the drug, or whether the special liability provisions of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) applied, making them absolutely liable regardless of their intent. This involved interpreting the provisions of the Code, specifically sections 11.5(1), 307(1), and 11.5(7A), and considering precedents such as R v LK; R v RK, Franze v The Queen, Luong v DPP, and Papadimitrou v The Queen.

The court held that the Crown was not required to prove the intention to import a commercial quantity, as the special liability provisions made the respondents absolutely liable. The court examined the language and purpose of the relevant sections of the Criminal Code, concluding that the provisions did not necessitate proof of the accused’s intent. The court also considered the trial judge’s decision not to give an Azzopardi direction, despite the defence counsel not requesting it. The court found that once the defence counsel informed the judge that no such direction was sought, the trial judge was not obliged to give one, even if it might have avoided a substantial miscarriage of justice. The court applied the principles from Knowles v The Queen, finding no discernible objective forensic advantage in seeking such a direction.

The High Court ultimately found that the trial judge's decision did not result in a substantial miscarriage of justice, and therefore upheld the respondents' convictions. The court refused leave to appeal, affirming the lower court’s decision.