R v Oke LADOKE, R v Ardi LA LAU and R v Haris LA SAID [2011] NSWDC 183

R v Oke LADOKE, R v Ardi LA LAU and R v Haris LA SAID [2011] NSWDC 183

The term 'lawful right to come to Australia' under s 232A(1) Migration Act refers to a right conferred by domestic law, specifically the possession of a valid visa or falling within a statutory exception. International law and the Refugee Convention do not of themselves confer a lawful right to travel to Australia. As the passengers did not have visas or fall within exceptions, they did not have a lawful right to come to Australia and the applications for directed verdicts must be rejected.

Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Accused: Oke Ladoke; Accused: Ardi La Lau; Accused: Haris La Said
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Interlocutory Application for Directed Verdicts
Outcome
Applications to direct verdicts rejected.
Legal Topics
People Smuggling, Lawful Right to Come to Australia, Interpretation of Migration Act, International Law and Refugee Rights, Directed Verdicts
Criminal Law People Smuggling Lawful Right to Come to Australia Interpretation of Migration Act International Law and Refugee Rights Directed Verdicts

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Oke Ladoke

Accused

Ardi La Lau

Accused

Haris La Said

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Interlocutory Application for Directed Verdicts

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the non-citizen passengers had a lawful right to come to Australia for the purposes of s 232A(1) Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
  2. 2 Whether international law or Treaty obligations provide a lawful right to enter Australia without a visa
  3. 3 Whether ambiguity exists regarding the expression 'lawful right' in s 232A

Ratio Decidendi

The term 'lawful right to come to Australia' under s 232A(1) Migration Act refers to a right conferred by domestic law, specifically the possession of a valid visa or falling within a statutory exception. International law and the Refugee Convention do not of themselves confer a lawful right to travel to Australia. As the passengers did not have visas or fall within exceptions, they did not have a lawful right to come to Australia and the applications for directed verdicts must be rejected.

Court Disposition

Applications to direct verdicts rejected.