R v Saurav MAHAY; Michael Dean KHAN; Dushand RANA [2010] NSWDC 340

R v Saurav MAHAY; Michael Dean KHAN; Dushand RANA [2010] NSWDC 340

There was evidence from which a jury could infer that the complainant's stay at Michael Khan's house was not voluntary and that Mr Khan was involved in the ransom demand, including the complainant's detention and assault at the house, Mr Khan's presence, the cardboard found in his pocket with a figure close to the initial ransom sum, and the failure to deliver the complainant to police as arranged. Accordingly there was a case to answer, and a Prasad direction was refused because it would risk intruding on the jury's function.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 August 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Jury Trial Concerning Specially Aggravated Detain for Ransom, Kidnapping and Assault / No Case Submission and Application for a Prasad Direction on Behalf of Michael Khan
Outcome
There is a case to answer and the judge did not propose to give a Prasad direction.
Legal Topics
['no Case to Answer' 'prasad Direction' 'joint Criminal Enterprise' 'specially Aggravated Detain for Ransom' 'kidnapping' 'assault']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['no Case to Answer' 'prasad Direction' 'joint Criminal Enterprise' 'specially Aggravated Detain for Ransom' 'kidnapping' 'assault']

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 Jury Trial Concerning Specially Aggravated Detain for Ransom, Kidnapping and Assault / No Case Submission and Application for a Prasad Direction on Behalf of Michael Khan

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there was a case to answer against Michael Khan.' "Whether the Crown evidence was capable of proving Michael Khan's intentional involvement in a joint criminal enterprise with his co-accused." 'Whether the jury should be given a Prasad direction.']

Ratio Decidendi

There was evidence from which a jury could infer that the complainant's stay at Michael Khan's house was not voluntary and that Mr Khan was involved in the ransom demand, including the complainant's detention and assault at the house, Mr Khan's presence, the cardboard found in his pocket with a figure close to the initial ransom sum, and the failure to deliver the complainant to police as arranged. Accordingly there was a case to answer, and a Prasad direction was refused because it would risk intruding on the jury's function.

Court Disposition

There is a case to answer and the judge did not propose to give a Prasad direction.

Orders

  • ['Application for a directed acquittal refused.' 'Application for a Prasad direction refused.']