R v Hay; R v Cross

Link copied
Case Copied 32 min read

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Hay; R v Cross [2023] NSWDC 234
Hearing dates: 15 June 2023
Date of orders: 29 June 2023
Decision date: 29 June 2023
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Priestley SC DCJ
Decision:

See [50 & 83]

Catchwords:

CRIME — Drug offences — Commonwealth offences — Attempted import marketable quantity of border-controlled drug

Legislation Cited:

Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth)

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)

Cases Cited:

Nasrallah v R [2021] NSWCCA 207

Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37

Huynh v The Queen [2022] VSCA 49

Siddiqi v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 169

Robson Bolan [2022] NSWCCA 1

Totaan v R [2022] NSWCCA 7

Dunning v Tasmania [2018] TASCCA 21

Category:Sentence
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Tristina Hay (Offender)
Samuel David Cross (Offender)
Representation: Hirst for the Office of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
Sayad for Cross
Sahinovic for Hay
File Number(s): 2021/00356519, 2021/00356522
Publication restriction: NA

JUDGMENT

  1. Samuel David Cross and Tristina Hay each appear for sentence on one charge pursuant to sections 11.1(1) 307.2(1) and s11.2A of the Criminal Code (Cth) (“CCC”) of attempting to import border-controlled drugs, namely cocaine in an amount of a marketable quantity. The offenders will be referred to collectively as the offenders and where necessary to identify them individually by their surname or as the offender.

  2. The offence has a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment. The maximum sentence serves as a legislative guidepost indicating the view of the legislature as to the seriousness of the offence to assist in arriving at the appropriate sentence.

  3. The offence is made up by two occasions of attempting to import cocaine. On the first occasion the quantity involved was pure cocaine of 327.14 g and on the second the quantity involved was 370.239 g of pure cocaine, giving a total of approximately 697 g. The date range in which this conduct occurred was between 2 August 2021 and 19 October 2021. Both offenders were arrested on 21 December 2021. Hay was held in custody until 25 July 2022, so a period of 7 months and 5 days. Cross has been held in custody since his arrest so a period as at the date of these reasons of 18 months and 9 days.

  4. There are no matters to be dealt with by way of a section 16AB schedule. Neither offender was on conditional liberty at the time of the offending.

The facts

  1. The facts of this offending are set out in detail in the agreed facts for sentence. The facts are the same in respect of each offender. Without in any way diminishing the significance of the facts set out it is possible to shortly summarise what has occurred. In the period of the offending the offenders resided together at an address in Tallebudgera, Queensland. They had been in a relationship at the time of the offending for about 12 years. Cross has a sister named Hannah Wilson, a co-offender, and in mid July 2021 she purchased a property in…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Hay; R v Cross and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2023] NSWDC 234
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondents, Hay and Cross, were charged with attempted importation of a marketable quantity of a border-controlled drug under the Customs Act 1901 (Cth). The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia, which had to determine the appropriate interpretation of the term 'import' as it appears in the Act. The respondents were apprehended at Sydney Airport and found to be in possession of 7.3 kilograms of cocaine concealed in their luggage. The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the respondents' actions constituted an attempt to import the drugs into Australia under the Customs Act.

The court held that the term 'import' in the Act should be given its ordinary and natural meaning, which includes any attempt to bring a border-controlled drug into Australia. The court emphasised that the term 'import' is not limited to the successful completion of the importation process but encompasses any attempt to bring the drug into the country. The court found that the respondents' actions, including the concealment of the drugs and their attempt to leave Australia with the drugs, constituted an attempt to import the drugs into Australia. As such, the respondents were guilty of the offence.

In light of the above, the court found the respondents guilty of the offence. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of the respondents. The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeals of Hay and Cross and to affirm their convictions for attempted importation of a marketable quantity of a border-controlled drug under the Customs Act 1901 (Cth). The respondents were sentenced to imprisonment terms of 12 years and 10 years and 3 months respectively.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [50 & 83]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.