R v Khorami [2021] NSWDC 760

R v Khorami [2021] NSWDC 760

The court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused intentionally touched AB's hand with his genitals without her consent and knowing she was not consenting, that the touching was an act of indecency with a clear sexual connotation, and that AB was under the accused's authority as the sleep technician responsible for monitoring and attending to her overnight. The judge rejected the accused's evidence as unsatisfactory and not credible, accepted AB's evidence, found tendency acts involving EF, GH and JK proved beyond reasonable doubt, and held that the only rational inference from the CCTV footage, AB's evidence and the tendency evidence was guilt.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 October 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution for Aggravated Indecent Assault Contrary to Section 61 M(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 / Judge Alone Trial; Verdict on Charge on Indictment
Outcome
Accused found guilty of the charge on the indictment.
Legal Topics
['aggravated Indecent Assault' 'judge Alone Trial' 'tendency Evidence' 'circumstantial Evidence' 'consent' 'act of Indecency' 'person Under Authority' 'delay Warning' 'avl Evidence']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'criminal Procedure'] ['aggravated Indecent Assault' 'judge Alone Trial' 'tendency Evidence' 'circumstantial Evidence' 'consent' 'act of Indecency' 'person Under Authority' 'delay Warning' 'avl Evidence']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Prosecution for Aggravated Indecent Assault Contrary to Section 61 M(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 / Judge Alone Trial; Verdict on Charge on Indictment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the accused assaulted AB by intentionally touching her outstretched hand with his genitals.' 'Whether any assault was accompanied by an act of indecency.' 'Whether AB consented and whether the accused knew she was not consenting.' 'Whether AB was under the authority of the accused at the time of the assault.' 'Whether tendency evidence had to be proved beyond reasonable doubt because of the circumstantial nature of the case.' 'Whether the only rational inference from the evidence was guilt rather than an innocent explanation or alternative healing explanation.']

Ratio Decidendi

The court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused intentionally touched AB's hand with his genitals without her consent and knowing she was not consenting, that the touching was an act of indecency with a clear sexual connotation, and that AB was under the accused's authority as the sleep technician responsible for monitoring and attending to her overnight. The judge rejected the accused's evidence as unsatisfactory and not credible, accepted AB's evidence, found tendency acts involving EF, GH and JK proved beyond reasonable doubt, and held that the only rational inference from the CCTV footage, AB's evidence and the tendency evidence was guilt.

Court Disposition

Accused found guilty of the charge on the indictment.

Orders

  • ['I find the accused guilty of the charge on the indictment.']