R v Jufri; R v Nasir - [2012] QCA 248

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Jufri; R v Nasir [2012] QCA 248

PARTIES:

R
v
JUFRI
(appellant)
R
v
NASIR
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 337 of 2011
CA No 348 of 2011
SC No 903 of 2011

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeals against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

13 September 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

21 June 2012

JUDGES:

Chief Justice, Fraser and Gotterson JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

Appeals dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where appellants found guilty by jury of facilitating the bringing to Australia of a group of non-citizens and sentenced to mandatory minimum penalty of five years imprisonment with three year non-parole period – where appellants argued insufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they were reckless as to whether the passengers had a lawful right to come to Australia – whether it was open to the jury on the whole of the evidence to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that each appellant was guilty of the offence

Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), s 5.2(1), s 5.6(1)
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 42, s 232A(1)

Fonseka v The Queen (2003) 140 A Crim R 395; [2003] WASCA 111, cited
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63, applied
MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53, applied
R v Ahmad (2012) 31 NTLR 38; [2012] NTCCA 1, cited

COUNSEL:

S M Ryan for the appellant Jufri
B H P Mumford for the appellant Nasir
G R Rice SC for the respondents

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the appellants
Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth) for the respondents

CHIEF JUSTICE: I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of Fraser JA. I agree that each appeal should be dismissed, for those reasons.

FRASER JA: The appellants were found guilty by a jury of an offence against s 232A(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) of facilitating the bringing to Australia of a group of non‑citizens. Each was sentenced to the mandatory minimum penalty of five years imprisonment with a three year non-parole period. Each appellant has appealed against his conviction on the ground that the verdict is unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence. Under that ground, the Court must review the record of the trial and determine whether, on the whole of the evidence, it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of the offence.[1]
[1]M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487 at 493; MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606 at 615.

Section 232A(1) provides:

“(1) A person who:
(a)organises or facilitates the bringing or coming to Australia, or the entry or proposed…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Jufri; R v Nasir 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: [2012] QCA 248
Decision Date: 13 September 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Jufri and R v Nasir, the appellants were convicted by a jury of facilitating the bringing of non-citizens into Australia, resulting in a mandatory minimum sentence of five years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years. The appellants appealed against their conviction and sentence, arguing that the jury's verdict was unreasonable and not supported by the evidence, specifically regarding their recklessness about the passengers' lawful right to enter Australia. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the jury's verdict was open to them based on the evidence presented.

The legal issues central to this appeal revolved around the interpretation of recklessness under the relevant statute and whether the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The appellants contended that the prosecution had failed to prove their recklessness to the requisite standard. The court was required to examine the jury's reasoning process, considering the entire body of evidence, to determine if the verdict was reasonable. This involved assessing whether the jury could have reasonably inferred that the appellants were reckless as to the passengers' lawful status.

The High Court found that the jury's verdict was well within the realm of reason and was supported by the evidence. The court emphasised that the jury's task was to determine whether the prosecution had proved the elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt, a standard that had been met in this case. The court rejected the appellants' contention that there was insufficient evidence to support their recklessness. The reasoning and evidence presented to the jury were deemed sufficient for them to reasonably conclude that the appellants were guilty of the offence. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, upholding the convictions and sentences imposed by the lower court.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeals dismissed.

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.

CITATION:	R v Jufri; R v Nasir [2012] QCA 248
PARTIES:	R v JUFRI (appellant) R v NASIR (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 337 of 2011 CA No 348 of 2011 SC No 903 of 2011
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeals against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	13 September 2012
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	21 June 2012
JUDGES:	Chief Justice, Fraser and Gotterson JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	Appeals dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where appellants found guilty by jury of facilitating the bringing to Australia of a group of non-citizens and sentenced to mandatory minimum penalty of five years imprisonment with three year non-parole period – where appellants argued insufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they were reckless as to whether the passengers had a lawful right to come to Australia – whether it was open to the jury on the whole of the evidence to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that each appellant was guilty of the offence Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), s 5.2(1), s 5.6(1) Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 42, s 232A(1) Fonseka v The Queen (2003) 140 A Crim R 395; [2003] WASCA 111, cited M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63, applied MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53, applied R v Ahmad (2012) 31 NTLR 38; [2012] NTCCA 1, cited
COUNSEL:	S M Ryan for the appellant Jufri B H P Mumford for the appellant Nasir G R Rice SC for the respondents
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the appellants Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth) for the respondents