Beech-Jones CJ at CL at [1]; Hamill J at [17]; N Adams J at [155]
Decision:
(1) Grant leave to appeal against the conviction.
(2) Dismiss the appeal against conviction.
(3) Grant leave to appeal against the sentence.
(4) Allow the appeal against sentence.
(5) Quash the sentence imposed in the District Court on 3 September 2021 and in lieu thereof, the applicant is sentenced to a non-parole period of 5 years and 3 months commencing on 14 October 2019 and expiring on 13 January 2025 with an additional term (balance of parole) of 2 years and 9 months expiring on 13 October 2027.
(6) The applicant will be eligible for release to parole at the expiration of the non-parole period.
Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – conviction appeal – whether verdicts inconsistent – unreasonable verdicts – test of logic and reasonableness – review of the whole of the evidence and whole of the trial record
CRIMINAL LAW – sentencing – good character – whether able to be taken into account in child sexual assault – section 21A(5A) Sentencing Procedure Act 1999 (NSW) – whether Judge erred in not taking good character into account
New South Wales Legislative Assembly, Parliamentary Debates (Hansard), 26 November 2008 at 11707
Category:
Principal judgment
Parties:
Kshetiz Bhatia (Applicant) Rex…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Bhatia v R
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Bhatia v R [2023] NSWCCA 12
Case
[2023] NSWCCA 12
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Bhatia v R, the appellant, Bhatia, appealed against his conviction and sentence for sexual assault. The appeal was heard by the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal. The key issues in this appeal were whether the verdicts were inconsistent and whether they were unreasonable, and whether the trial judge erred in not considering the appellant's good character during sentencing. The appeal centred on the proper application of the test of logic and reasonableness in assessing the verdicts, as well as the interpretation and application of section 21A(5A) of the Sentencing Procedure Act 1999 (NSW).
The court examined whether the verdicts reached by the jury were inconsistent and unreasonable. In doing so, the court considered the whole of the evidence and the whole of the trial record, assessing whether the jury's findings were logically and reasonably supported by the evidence presented. The court also addressed whether the trial judge had erred in not taking the appellant's good character into account during sentencing, as required by section 21A(5A) of the Sentencing Procedure Act 1999 (NSW). The court scrutinised whether the judge's failure to consider the appellant's good character constituted a material error that warranted a new sentencing hearing.
The court concluded that the verdicts were not inconsistent and were reasonably supported by the evidence. The court also found that the trial judge did not err in not taking the appellant's good character into account, as the judge had considered all relevant factors in imposing the sentence. The court held that the good character of the appellant could not be taken into account in sentencing for a child sexual assault under section 21A(5A) of the Sentencing Procedure Act 1999 (NSW). Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original conviction and sentence were upheld.
The final orders of the court were that the appeal against conviction and sentence be dismissed, and the original conviction and sentence of the appellant remain in place.