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
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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…
Continue reading R v Hay; R v Cross
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Hay; R v Cross [2023] NSWDC 234
- Case
- [2023] NSWDC 234
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.