R v Khoshdil [2024] NSWDC 257

R v Khoshdil [2024] NSWDC 257

Relationship/context evidence relating to the accused's ongoing pattern of coercive, controlling, and violent behaviour towards the complainant is admissible as it is directly relevant to establishing whether the complainant’s consent was vitiated and the accused’s knowledge of absence of consent, per ss 61HJ(1)(e), (f), and (h) Crimes Act 1900 and supported by applicable authority. The probative value outweighs the prejudicial effect, and any potential prejudice can be managed by judicial direction. Certain specific evidence items were excluded as irrelevant or unfairly prejudicial.

Parties
Prosecution: Rex (Crown); Offender: Noorolhaq Khoshdil
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Pre Trial Evidentiary Ruling
Outcome
Relationship/context evidence is admissible other than as identified
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Relationship Evidence, Sexual Offences, Consent, Criminal Procedure
Criminal Law Admissibility of Evidence Relationship Evidence Sexual Offences Consent Criminal Procedure

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex (Crown)

Prosecution

Noorolhaq Khoshdil

Offender

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Pre Trial Evidentiary Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proposed relationship/context evidence is admissible at trial
  2. 2 Whether the evidence satisfies the statutory and common law requirements for admissibility and is not unfairly prejudicial

Ratio Decidendi

Relationship/context evidence relating to the accused's ongoing pattern of coercive, controlling, and violent behaviour towards the complainant is admissible as it is directly relevant to establishing whether the complainant’s consent was vitiated and the accused’s knowledge of absence of consent, per ss 61HJ(1)(e), (f), and (h) Crimes Act 1900 and supported by applicable authority. The probative value outweighs the prejudicial effect, and any potential prejudice can be managed by judicial direction. Certain specific evidence items were excluded as irrelevant or unfairly prejudicial.

Court Disposition

Relationship/context evidence is admissible other than as identified

Orders

  • The evidence is admissible other than as identified in the judgment and noted schedule extract from Annexure D (Ms Dao's affidavit).
  • The trial date is confirmed.