Legal Research
Cases
PJ v The Queen

PJ v The Queen

Case [2012] VSCA 146 29 June 2012

Appeal

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

Statutory Interpretation

Criminal Liability

Mens Rea & Intention

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2012 0094

P J	Applicant
	v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES	MAXWELL P, REDLICH and HANSEN JJA
WHERE HELD	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING	11 May 2012
DATE OF JUDGMENT	29 June 2012
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION	[2012] VSCA 146
DECISION APPEALED FROM	DPP v [P J] (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Maidment, 2 May 2012)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Interlocutory appeal – Aggravated people smuggling (at least five persons) – Applicant charged with facilitating the bringing of non-citizens to Australia – Whether prosecution required to prove knowledge that intended destination was Australia – Physical element – Conduct – Fault element – Intention – Legal status of destination as part of Australia – Proof of knowledge required – Appeal allowed – Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 233C, Criminal Code (Cth) Part 2.2, Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic) s 295.

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – Criminal law – Commonwealth offences – Offence elements disaggregated – Physical elements – Fault elements – General interpretation principles applicable – Aggravated people smuggling – Three separate physical elements – Absolute liability with respect to status of passengers as non-citizens – Physical element conduct – Facilitating the bringing of non-citizens to Australia – No fault element specified – Fault element intention – Legal status of destination as part of Australia – Whether proof of intention requires proof of knowledge of legal status – Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) ss 2B, 15B, Migration Act 1958 (Cth) Part 2, Division 12, Subdivision A, Criminal Code (Cth) Part 2.2.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr R Richter QC with Mr D D Gurvich and Mr M Phillips	Victoria Legal Aid
For the Respondent	Dr S P Donaghue SC with Mr C W Beale and Ms K Breckweg	Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions

MAXWELL P
REDLICH JA
HANSEN JA:

The applicant is charged with the ‘aggravated offence of people smuggling (at least five people)’, under s 233C of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the ‘Act’).[1] Stripped to its essentials, the indictment charges that the applicant

at Indonesia and the seas between Indonesia and the territory of Christmas Island, Australia… did facilitate the bringing or coming to Australia of a group of five or more persons, namely a group of 49 persons, who were non-citizens and who had or have no lawful right to come to Australia, and he did so reckless as to whether the said 49 persons had or have a lawful right to come to Australia.[2]

[1]Section 233C was introduced into the Migration Act by the Anti-People Smuggling and Other Measures Act 2010.

[2]Emphasis added.

At a pre-trial hearing, the parties asked the trial judge to rule on the construction of the phrase ‘facilitate the bringing or coming to Australia of a group of at least five persons’ in s 233C(1)(a). The question for resolution was whether proof of the offence required the prosecution to establish that the applicant was aware that the destination of the journey…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading PJ v The Queen

Details

AGLC: PJ v The Queen [2012] VSCA 146
Case: [2012] VSCA 146
Decision Date: 29 June 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of PJ v The Queen, the High Court of Australia addressed an interlocutory appeal concerning the interpretation of the offence of aggravated people smuggling. The applicant, PJ, was charged with facilitating the bringing of non-citizens to Australia, a serious offence under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The central issue before the court was whether the prosecution needed to prove that PJ knew the intended destination of the non-citizens was Australia, or if it was sufficient to prove he knew they were non-citizens and that he facilitated their travel to Australia.

The court examined the statutory provisions and their elements to determine whether knowledge of the destination was a necessary component of the offence. The Migration Act s 233C and the Criminal Code both played significant roles in the analysis. The court held that the offence of aggravated people smuggling required proving three physical elements: the status of the passengers as non-citizens, the conduct of facilitating their travel, and the legal status of the destination as part of Australia. While absolute liability applied to the first two elements, the third element, concerning the destination's legal status, required proving an intention to facilitate the bringing of non-citizens to Australia. This, in turn, required proof of knowledge that the destination was Australia.

The court found that the prosecution needed to demonstrate that PJ knew the intended destination was Australia. The reasoning was based on the need to align the fault element of intention with the physical element of the destination's legal status. Since the intention to facilitate the bringing of non-citizens to Australia inherently required knowledge of the destination's legal status, proof of such knowledge was necessary. The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the lower court for further proceedings.

Orders