Where the evidence in a people smuggling prosecution under s 233C of the Migration Act establishes that the accused used the word 'Australia' in context indicating knowledge that Australia was the ultimate destination, references to a specific location such as Ashmore Reef do not create an additional element requiring proof that the accused knew that location was part of Australia. The additional direction identified in PJ v R and Alomalu v R is only required where the evidence is that the accused intended to go to a specific destination and there is no evidence of knowledge that Australia was the ultimate destination.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 2 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.