Legal Research
Cases
Houshyar v The The King

Houshyar v The The King

Case [2022] NSWCCA 245 9 December 2022

Criminal Liability

Appeal

Circumstantial Evidence

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Houshyar v R [2022] NSWCCA 245
Hearing dates: 26 September 2022
Date of orders: 09 December 2022
Decision date: 09 December 2022
Before: Garling J at [1]
Adamson J at [176]
N Adams J at [177]
Decision:
(1) Leave to appeal be granted;
(2) The appeal be dismissed.

Catchwords:
CRIME — Appeals — Appeal against conviction — Unreasonable verdict — Offence contrary to s 38(b) of the Crimes Act 1900 of causing a person to take an intoxicating substance with intent to commit an indictable offence — Further offences of sexual intercourse without consent and larceny committed while complainant was unconscious as a result of the intoxicating substance — Circumstantial case which relied on the complainant’s account and also expert pharmacological evidence — Whether all reasonable hypotheses consistent with innocence were excluded — Open to jury to exclude those reasonable hypotheses — Appeal dismissed

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 ss 38(b), 61I, 117
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 s 6(1)

Cases Cited:
Chidiac v The Queen (1991) 171 CLR 432; [1991] HCA 4
Dansie v The Queen [2022] HCA 25; 96 ALJR 728
Hocking v Bell (1945) 71 CLR 430; [1945] HCA 16
Liberato v The Queen (1985) 159 CLR 507; [1985] HCA 66
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63
Pell v The Queen (2020) 268 CLR 123; [2020] HCA 1
R v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308; [2016] HCA 35
SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400; [2011] HCA 13
Whitehorn v The Queen (1983) 152 CLR 657; [1983] HCA 42

Texts Cited:
Not applicable

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Mohammadreza Aghajani Houshyar (Applicant)
The Crown (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
GE Lewer / C Akthar (Applicant)
E Nicholson (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Hugo Law Group (Applicant)
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2019/107061; 2020/1869
Publication restriction: Publication of any matter which identifies or which is likely to lead to the identification of the complainant is prohibited: Crimes Act 1900 s 578A.
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

27 July 2020

Before:

Flannery SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2019/107061

Judgment

GARLING J: The applicant, Mohammadreza Aghajani Houshyar, seeks leave to appeal the convictions which were entered on 27 July 2020, after a trial before Flannery SC DCJ and a jury at the Sydney District Court.
The applicant was convicted of the following four counts which were on an Indictment:

Count 1: Cause person to take intoxicating substance with intent to commit an indictable offence (being the offences of larceny and sexual assault), contrary to s 38(b) of the Crimes Act 1900;

Count 2: Sexual intercourse without consent, contrary to s 61I of the Crimes Act;

Count 3: Larceny, contrary to s 117 of the Crimes Act (relating to $6000 in Australian currency); and

Count 4: Larceny, contrary to s 117…

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 Houshyar v The The King

Details

AGLC: Houshyar v The The King [2022] NSWCCA 245
Case: [2022] NSWCCA 245
Decision Date: 09 December 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Houshyar v The King, the appellant was convicted of causing a person to take an intoxicating substance with intent to commit an indictable offence, as well as additional offences of sexual intercourse without consent and larceny committed while the complainant was unconscious. The case was heard in the court of appeal, with the appellant contesting the reasonableness of their conviction. The central dispute revolved around whether the jury's verdict was so unreasonable as to justify the court's intervention. The conviction was based on a combination of the complainant's testimony and expert pharmacological evidence.

The primary legal issues before the court involved assessing the sufficiency of the evidence presented and determining if all reasonable hypotheses consistent with the appellant's innocence had been excluded. The court was tasked with evaluating whether the jury was justified in rejecting any hypothesis other than the one of guilt. The focus was on the weight and sufficiency of the evidence, particularly the complainant's account and the pharmacological evidence, in supporting the jury's conclusion. The court also needed to determine if the evidence allowed the jury to reasonably exclude any other hypothesis besides the appellant's guilt.

The court found that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the jury's verdict. The jury was presented with a circumstantial case, relying on the complainant's account and expert pharmacological evidence. The court held that it was open to the jury to exclude any reasonable hypotheses consistent with the appellant's innocence, given the nature of the evidence and the circumstances of the case. The appeal was dismissed, as the court found no basis to interfere with the jury's decision. The evidence provided a sound basis for the jury's conclusion, and the verdict was not unreasonable.

Orders