Case Analysis: PJ v R [2012] VSCA 146; (2012) 36 VR 402

Case Analysis

CASE ANALYSIS
Citation: PJ v R [2012] VSCA 146; (2012) 36 VR 402
Court & Judges: The case had taken place between PJ (the applicant) v. The Queen
(respondent) in the year 2012. This landmark case was discussed within the Victorian Court of
Appeal where the judges who were in-charged for declaring the decision was MAXWELL P,
REDLICH and HANSEN JJA.
Material Facts: The case was all about smuggling where Mr. Sore and Mr. Rustam had
been charged for entering into the international boundary of Indonesia and entering into the
boundary of Australia1. Here, Applicant was charged with the case for facilitating to bring non-
citizen of Australia for criminal activity.
Procedural History: This respective case was presented in the court by appeal made by the
applicant PJ for forgiving the smuggler who came from Indonesia.
Issue: The legal issues which are included in this particular case are:
 Recruiting the people for performing certain work without giving sufficient
information is relevant or not.
 Is Migration Act 1958 has been followed or not for entering into another nation.
 Where the Criminal Procedures Act 2009 has followed or not.
 Even there were no lawful right has been granted to the five people to enter into the
Australia 2.
 Lastly, all of the above mentioned points were mainly focused within this particular
case for the purpose of declaring the specific result.
Holdings: The Victorian court upheld the details that the offence was clearly related to
smuggling which is against the law. Here, judges Maxwell P, Hansen and Redlich JJA held that
law like Migration Act, 1958 was breached and Criminal Procedures Act 2009 is applicable in
1 "PJ V R" (2012) 36 VR.
2 SK Misra, "Analysing CASE System Characteristics: Evaluative Framework" (1990) 32(6) Information and
Software Technology.