Smith v R; R v Afford [2017] HCA 19: Inferential Reasoning and Jury Directions

The High Court has held that an inference that an accused intended to import a substance contrary to section 307.1(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth) could be drawn from the knowledge or belief on the part of the accused that there could be a real significant chance that the substance was being important. The High Court held in relation to two appeals that the accused were both criminally culpable in the case of Smith v R; R v Afford [2017] HCA 19.

Smith v R

In this case, the appellant, Mr Smith, was a US citizen convicted of importing an illicit drug into Australia. According to the appellant, he was approached in India by a friend of a Reverend to deliver some gifts to someone in Australia. Upon arrival in Australia, Australian Customs officers detected traces of methamphetamine in the gifts. The appellant recounted that he had significant misgivings about carrying the gifts to Australia but stressed that he had no intention of importing drugs. He was nevertheless convicted on one count of importing a commercial quantity of illicit substances contrary to the Criminal Code.

R v Afford

The respondent, Mr Afford, was engaged by a third party in Manila about the prospects of building a luxury hotel in Australia. Emails were exchanged concerning this proposal for the next few months until ultimately, the respondent was told that funds in Australia had been defaced and that it would require cleaning by a security company using what would be called ‘separation oil.’ The respondent travelled to Manila to retrieve the ‘separation oil’. His baggage was examined on his return by Australian Customs Officers and a commercial quantity of pure heroin was found in his luggage. Mr Afford denied that he intended to import the illicit drugs and submitted that even if he had been suspicious that the suitcase might contain drugs, such a suspicion could not establish an intention to import the substances. Similar to Mr Smith, Mr Afford was also convicted of illegally importing a commercial quantity of an illicit substance.

High Court

The Court held that consistent with the precedent of inferential reasoning found in Bahri Kural v R [1987] HCA 16, where it is established that an accused perceived there to be a real or significant chance of a substance being present in an object which the accused brought into Australia, it is open to infer on the basis of all the facts and circumstances of the case that the accused intended to import the substance. 

TimeBase is an independent, privately owned Australian legal publisher specialising in the online delivery of accurate, comprehensive and innovative legislation research tools including LawOne and unique Point-in-Time Products. Nothing on this website should be construed as legal advice and does not substitute for the advice of competent legal counsel.

Smith v The Queen; The Queen v Afford [2017] HCA 19 and associated judgment summary