REGINA v KHAN [2000] NSWCCA 428

REGINA v KHAN [2000] NSWCCA 428

The appeal against conviction failed because the summing up correctly stated the elements of the offences, properly directed the jury on proof beyond reasonable doubt, consent, honest belief, credibility, and use of interrelated facts, and fairly put the defence case. The verdicts were open on the evidence, including the complainant's evidence and supporting physical evidence. Leave to appeal against sentence was granted, but the sentence appeal failed because the appellant's conduct involved objectively high and sustained criminality, no error was shown, and the sentences were within the permissible range.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 October 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence From the District Court
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; leave to appeal against sentence granted but appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['sexual Intercourse Without Consent' 'common Assault' 'indecent Assault' 'abduction' 'kidnapping Alternative Charge' 'jury Directions' 'consent and Honest Belief in Consent' 'tendency Evidence' 'complainant Credibility and Reliability' 'unsafe or Unreasonable Verdict' 'sentence Appeal']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence' 'sentencing'] ['sexual Intercourse Without Consent' 'common Assault' 'indecent Assault' 'abduction' 'kidnapping Alternative Charge' 'jury Directions' 'consent and Honest Belief in Consent' 'tendency Evidence' 'complainant Credibility and Reliability' 'unsafe or Unreasonable Verdict' 'sentence Appeal']

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 Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence From the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the trial judge misdirected or failed to direct the jury adequately about the appellant's guilty plea to count 9 and the use of the facts surrounding that count." 'Whether the trial judge erred in directing the jury about consent and honest belief in consent on the sexual charges.' 'Whether the trial judge misdirected the jury by treating the case as a contest between versions rather than requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt.' 'Whether the trial judge misdirected or failed to direct the jury about intent on count 10.' 'Whether the trial judge erred in directing that factual findings on one charge could bear on other charges.' "Whether the trial judge failed to give adequate directions about the complainant's reliability and credit, corroborative evidence, or a Longman-type warning." 'Whether the trial judge failed to give an overall and comprehensive view of the defence case on each count.' 'Whether the verdicts were unsafe, unsatisfactory, unreasonable, or unsupported by the evidence.' 'Whether the sentences imposed were excessive or affected by error.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal against conviction failed because the summing up correctly stated the elements of the offences, properly directed the jury on proof beyond reasonable doubt, consent, honest belief, credibility, and use of interrelated facts, and fairly put the defence case. The verdicts were open on the evidence, including the complainant's evidence and supporting physical evidence. Leave to appeal against sentence was granted, but the sentence appeal failed because the appellant's conduct involved objectively high and sustained criminality, no error was shown, and the sentences were within the permissible range.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed; leave to appeal against sentence granted but appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Appeal against conviction dismissed.' 'Leave to appeal against sentence granted.' 'Appeal against sentence dismissed.']