Smith v The Queen [2017] HCA 19

Smith v The Queen [2017] HCA 19

The process of inferential reasoning articulated in Bahri Kural v The Queen applies to proof of intention under s 307.1 of the Criminal Code (Cth); awareness of a real or significant chance of presence of a substance in imported items can support an inference of intention provided the jury is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, from all the circumstances, that the accused meant to import the substance. Jury directions must distinguish between intent and recklessness and ensure intent is established to the requisite standard.

Parties
Appellant: Maltimore Smith; Respondent: The Queen; Appellant: The Queen; Respondent: Steven Lakamu Siosiua Afford
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / High Court of Australia Decision After Appeals From Supreme Court of New South Wales and Supreme Court of Victoria
Outcome
Appeal in Smith dismissed; appeal in Afford allowed.
Legal Topics
Fault Element, Intention, Importation of Drugs, Inferential Reasoning, Jury Directions
Criminal Law Fault Element Intention Importation of Drugs Inferential Reasoning Jury Directions

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 2 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maltimore Smith

Appellant

The Queen

Respondent

The Queen

Appellant

Steven Lakamu Siosiua Afford

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / High Court of Australia Decision After Appeals From Supreme Court of New South Wales and Supreme Court of Victoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the process of inferential reasoning from Bahri Kural v The Queen is applicable to proof of intention to import border controlled drugs under s 307.1 of the Criminal Code (Cth)
  2. 2 Whether jury directions in both Smith and Afford conflated intent with recklessness or misdirected the jury as to the fault element for importation under the Code
  3. 3 Whether an unsafe verdict occurred in Afford

Ratio Decidendi

The process of inferential reasoning articulated in Bahri Kural v The Queen applies to proof of intention under s 307.1 of the Criminal Code (Cth); awareness of a real or significant chance of presence of a substance in imported items can support an inference of intention provided the jury is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, from all the circumstances, that the accused meant to import the substance. Jury directions must distinguish between intent and recklessness and ensure intent is established to the requisite standard.

Court Disposition

Appeal in Smith dismissed; appeal in Afford allowed.

Orders

  • Appeal in Matter No S249/2016 (Smith) dismissed.
  • Appeal in Matter No M144/2016 (Afford) allowed.