Kapoor (a pseudonym) v The King - [2023] VSCA 260

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2023 0145

SANDEEP KAPOOR (A PSEUDONYM)	Applicant
v
THE KING	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	BEACH, WHELAN and KAYE JJA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	27 October 2023
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	27 October 2023
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2023] VSCA 260
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2023] VCC 1280 (Judge Hassan)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Application for leave to appeal conviction – Trial conducted in manner inconsistent with applicable ruling on tendency – Substantial miscarriage of justice conceded by prosecution – Leave granted, appeal allowed, new trial ordered.

Evidence Act 2008 s 97.

---

Counsel
Applicant:	Mr PJ Smallwood
Respondent:	Mr BF Kissane KC with Ms B Goding
Solicitors
Applicant:	Doogue + George Defence Lawyers
Respondent:	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

BEACH JA
WHELAN JA
KAYE JA:

On 8 March 2023, the applicant was convicted after a trial before a jury of two charges of rape (charges 1 and 3), two charges of making threat to kill (charges 4 and 5), and one charge of intentionally causing injury (charge 6). The complainant on each of the charges was the applicant’s wife. The threats to kill were alleged to be threats to kill her (charge 4), and to kill her sister (charge 5).
The applicant has applied for leave to appeal his conviction on a number of grounds. For present purposes, it is only necessary to say that it is contended that there was a substantial miscarriage of justice as a result of the manner in which tendency evidence was left to the jury (proposed ground 1), and as a result of the jury not being given a direction to avoid the risk of improper use of ‘other misconduct evidence’[1] adduced by the prosecution (proposed ground 2).
[1]Defined in s 26 of the Jury Directions Act 2015 as including ‘tendency evidence’, ‘evidence of other discreditable acts and omissions of an accused that are not directly relevant to a fact in issue’ and ‘evidence that is adduced to assist the jury to understand the context in which the offence charged or any alternative offence is alleged to have been committed’.
The prosecution concede that a substantial miscarriage of justice has occurred, by reason of the matters the subject of those two proposed grounds, and that a new trial should be ordered.
After considering the material and hearing submissions, we ordered at the conclusion of the hearing that leave to appeal be granted on proposed grounds 1 and 2, that the appeal against conviction be allowed, that the convictions and sentences be set aside, and that there be a new trial. We said reasons would be delivered later. These are those reasons.
The applicant’s trial had initially begun in August 2022, before Judge Georgiou. The prosecution had given two notices of intention to adduce evidence of tendency pursuant to s 97(1)(a) of the Evidence Act 2008, which notices were amended in the course of a pre‑empanelment hearing before Judge Georgiou. Judge Georgiou delivered a detailed…

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 Kapoor (a pseudonym) v The King

Details

AGLC: Kapoor (a pseudonym) v The King [2023] VSCA 260
Case: [2023] VSCA 260
Decision Date: 27 October 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Kapoor (a pseudonym) sought leave to appeal his conviction for drug trafficking. The trial judge had conducted the trial in a manner inconsistent with the applicable ruling on tendency evidence. The High Court was required to determine whether the error was so substantial as to necessitate a new trial. The central issue was whether the trial judge's handling of the evidence resulted in a substantial miscarriage of justice. The court examined the impact of the error on the trial's fairness and the strength of the prosecution's case in light of the error.

The court held that the trial judge's handling of the evidence did indeed result in a substantial miscarriage of justice. The court noted that the error was significant as it pertained to the handling of tendency evidence, which is a critical aspect of criminal trials. The court also considered the prosecution's concession that a substantial miscarriage of justice had occurred. This concession, combined with the court's own assessment of the evidence and the trial's conduct, led to the conclusion that the error was substantial. The court granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal, ordering a new trial to ensure the fairness of the proceedings.

In light of the substantial miscarriage of justice, the court ordered a new trial. The decision emphasised the importance of adherence to legal principles, particularly those concerning the handling of evidence, to maintain the integrity of criminal trials. The court's ruling underscored the gravity of errors in the application of legal rules and the necessity of correcting such errors to uphold the principles of justice.

Orders