Farshchi v The KingCitation:[2025] HCA 46Before:Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot, Beech-Jones JJDate:03 Dec 2025Case Number:M20/2025Read more

Farshchi v The KingCitation:[2025] HCA 46Before:Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot, Beech-Jones JJDate:03 Dec 2025Case Number:M20/2025Read more

The High Court held that the direction that 'reasonable doubt is not an unrealistic possibility' does not alter, impair, detract from or diminish the criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt, nor is it inconsistent with s 13.2 of the Criminal Code (Cth) or s 80 of the Constitution.

Parties
Appellant: Farshchi; Respondent: The King
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 December 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Standard of Proof, Jury Directions, Federal Jurisdiction, Forced Labour Offences

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Farshchi

Appellant

The King

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the direction that 'reasonable doubt is not an unrealistic possibility' alters, impairs, detracts from or diminishes the criminal standard of proof 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
  2. 2 Whether the explanation in the Jury Directions Act is inconsistent with the requirements of 'trial on indictment ... by jury' in s 80 of the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held that the direction that 'reasonable doubt is not an unrealistic possibility' does not alter, impair, detract from or diminish the criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt, nor is it inconsistent with s 13.2 of the Criminal Code (Cth) or s 80 of the Constitution.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The conviction is affirmed.