R v Zainudin

The appeal concerned Mr Zainudin, who was convicted of an offence under section 233C of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) for bringing non-citizens into Australia. The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence, and Mr Zainudin contended that the trial judge erred in ruling that there was a case to answer at the conclusion of the prosecution's evidence. The appeal was heard by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia, comprising Kourakis CJ, Blue and Stanley JJ.

The legal issues before the court were twofold: first, whether section 233C of the *Migration Act* applied to conduct occurring outside of Australia's territorial waters; and second, whether the jury, at the stage of considering a case to answer or at the end of the trial, could have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Zainudin possessed the necessary knowledge that the passengers were being brought to Australia. The court considered the application of the *Criminal Code*'s provisions on geographical jurisdiction to the offence.

The court allowed the appeal, finding that section 233C of the *Migration Act* did not have extra-territorial operation in the manner contended by the prosecution. The court reasoned that, in the absence of a clear contrary intention within the Act, the standard geographical jurisdiction provisions of the *Criminal Code* applied, which required conduct to occur or have a result within Australia. As Mr Zainudin's conduct did not meet this threshold, there was no case to answer on this basis. Consequently, the court held that the jury could not have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the requisite knowledge for a conviction.

The court set aside the jury's verdict and substituted a verdict of acquittal.