Comprehensive Case Analysis: PJ v R (Smuggling) - Law Assignment

This case analysis examines PJ v R [2012] VSCA 146, a landmark case heard in the Victorian Court of Appeal. The case involved charges of facilitating the illegal entry of non-citizens into Australia, specifically focusing on smuggling activities. The analysis delves into the material facts, procedural history, and the legal issues at hand, including the application of the Migration Act 1958 and the Criminal Procedures Act 2009. The court upheld the initial charges related to smuggling, but the final judgement was reversed based on the Refugee Convention. The analysis explores the reasoning behind the court's decision, the relevant sections of the Migration Act, and the interplay between different legal frameworks. The analysis also highlights the importance of providing sufficient evidence and facts during legal proceedings and offers commentary on the potential for conflicts between the Migration Act and the Refugee Convention. References to relevant case law are also included.

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.

this respective situation. Also, the rights have been not obtained by the five individuals who had
entered into the boundary of Australia.
Reasons: The decision which was taken in this particular case was obtained only after
having the analysis on the case where it was decided that were taken was made only after
majority of the judges. Here, Mr. PJ was charged under the section 233C of a Migration Act. It
was found that aggravated people were smuggling within the boundary of Australia. Under
section 233C (1), judges found that held that Mr. PJ brought 5 people in the nation without
obtaining the permission. Also, those persons were not the resident of a country. The last element
is that there was no right to the people to enter into the nation which means it was unlawful too.
But, after certain time period Mr. PJ was able to prove the people who has been entered into the
country falls under the category of Refugee Convention according to which it is lawful process
to give them the right to stay within the country.
Additional Comments: There were number of points which were really helpful in this
particular situation due to which people had to not suffer. Firstly, that had taken the help of
section 233C and 233C (1) for declaring the result in this particular situation3. Also, references
where taken from number of cases such as R v Ahmad (2012) 31 NTLR 38 which was helpful in
declaring the important judgement.4
Orders: Finally, the judgement was reversed where it was identified that understand the
Mr. JP had not committed any of the offence as under Refugee Convention, the right must be
granted to the people who come from other nation. Also, it will be considered as lawful rights to
here as they were asylum seeker.
Commentary: Looking at the scenario, it is necessary to have an overview to different
laws and section which has been creating the issues. It is also necessary to identify that whether
section 233 requires some of the changes or not. It is because people who comes under the
Refugee convention and Criminal Code and Migration act do conflict in this respective situation.
It has been creating huge issues because there are number of instances where innocent people are
3 "Federal Courts. Powers. Under Civil Rights Act Of 1871 Federal Jurisdiction Exists To Enjoin State Judge From
Proceeding In Criminal Trial" (2015) 64(3).
4 People Smuggling (Basic Offence). 2019.

being charged. Here, proper definition must be identified that who will fall under the category of
Migration Act and who will be assumed as a Refugee convention.
General Comments on the case analysis: While addressing the additional comment
within the respective case, it can be easily assumed that there were number of loop holes. It is
said that case has been raised but the information which were presented in front of the court were
very less then requirement. So, it will be important at the time of declaring the decision that there
must be provided evidences and the facts which can allow to give proper judgement in the case.
REFERENCES
Books & Journals
"PJ V R" (2012) 36 VR.
Misra, SK, "Analysing CASE System Characteristics: Evaluative Framework" (1990)
32(6) Information and Software Technology
"Federal Courts. Powers. Under Civil Rights Act Of 1871 Federal Jurisdiction Exists To Enjoin
State Judge From Proceeding In Criminal Trial" (2015) 64(3)
Online
People Smuggling (Basic Offence). 2019. [Online]. Available Through:
<https://www.judicialcollege.vic.edu.au/eManuals/CCB/46839.htm>