Cassim v Dahaby - [2025] VSC 26

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST

S ECI 2024 01018

AHMED KAMIL MOHAMED CASSIM	Plaintiff
v
LAUREN DAHABY	First Defendant
and
COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA	Second Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Watson J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	13 September 2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	12 February 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Cassim v Dahaby & Anor
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 26

---

JUDICIAL REVIEW – Plaintiff convicted of four charges of sexual assault in County Court –Appeal before judge alone – Whether County Court decision legally unreasonable – Decision not legally unreasonable – Whether County Court failed to provide adequate reasons – Whether reasons adequately deal with character evidence – Limited nature of character evidence – Reasons adequately deal with character evidence – Whether reasons merely prefer evidence of complainants – Reasons allow for an assessment that evidence of complainants not merely preferred – Liberato principles properly applied – Whether reasons given for rejecting the evidence of the plaintiff – Reasons not given for rejecting evidence of plaintiff – Reasons inadequate – Douglass v The Queen (2012) 86 ALJR 1086; Ta v Thompson (2013) 46 VR 10; DL v The Queen (2018) 266 CLR 1; Wade v R [2018] NSWCCA 85; Kaur v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2019) 269 FCR 464; Makeham v Sheppard [2020] VSCA 242; Dadashy v Scholte [2021] VSC 246.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr D Gurvich KC with Ms N Kaye	Avant Law
For the First Defendant	Mr J Johnston with Mr R Slattery	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Second Defendant	No appearance

HIS HONOUR:

The plaintiff, Dr Cassim, seeks to set aside orders of the County Court made on 8 December 2023 which found him guilty of four charges of sexual assault pursuant to s 40 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) (‘Crimes Act’).

On 19 December 2022 a Magistrate found Dr Cassim guilty of seven charges of sexual assault pursuant to s 40 of the Crimes Act. Those charges related to four female patients who were alleged to have been assaulted during the course of medical consultations conducted by Dr Cassim, in the course of his practice as a general practitioner. In the Magistrates’ Court, Dr Cassim was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 12 months.

Dr Cassim lodged an appeal against conviction and sentence in the County Court. The appeal was heard over 12 days in August and September 2023. On 8 December 2023 her Honour, Judge Ellis of the County Court, found Dr Cassim not guilty of charges in relation to two of the four patients and found Dr Cassim guilty of charges in relation to the two remaining patients, who I will refer to in these reasons as Complainant A and Complainant B.

In this proceeding, Dr Cassim seeks to set aside those findings of guilt. He advances four separate grounds…

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 Cassim v Dahaby

Details

AGLC: Cassim v Dahaby [2025] VSC 26
Case: [2025] VSC 26
Decision Date: 12 February 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Cassim v Dahaby, the plaintiff sought judicial review of his convictions for four charges of sexual assault, which were handed down by the County Court. The appeal was heard by a judge alone. The central issue for determination was whether the County Court's decision was legally unreasonable. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether the County Court had failed to provide adequate reasons, particularly in relation to the character evidence presented during the trial.

The court examined the County Court's reasons and found that they adequately addressed the character evidence. The character evidence presented was limited in nature and did not play a decisive role in the County Court's decision. The reasons provided allowed for an assessment of the evidence presented by the complainants, and demonstrated that their evidence was not merely preferred. The Liberato principles were properly applied in the County Court's decision-making process. However, the reasons given for rejecting the evidence of the plaintiff were found to be inadequate, as per the cases of Douglass v The Queen (2012) 86 ALJR 1086; Ta v Thompson (2013) 46 VR 10; DL v The Queen (2018) 266 CLR 1; Wade v R [2018] NSWCCA 85; Kaur v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2019) 269 FCR 464; Makeham v Sheppard [2020] VSCA 242; and Dadashy v Scholte [2021] VSC 246.

Based on the court's findings, the appeal was dismissed. The County Court's decision was not legally unreasonable, and the reasons provided were adequate, except for the reasons given for rejecting the evidence of the plaintiff. The plaintiff's application for judicial review was therefore unsuccessful.

Orders