Khan v The Queen - [2012] NSWCCA 74

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Khan v R [2012] NSWCCA 74
Hearing dates: 21 February 2012
Decision date: 27 April 2012
Before: Macfarlan JA at [1]
RS Hulme J at [56]
Garling J at [57]
Decision:
(1) Leave to appeal granted.
(2) Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - appeal - conviction - detention with the intention of holding to ransom in the company of others with occasioning of actual bodily harm - s 86(3) Crimes Act 1900 - whether verdict unsafe and unsatisfactory - s 6 Criminal Appeal Act 1912 - whether evidence to support Crown case
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Cases Cited: Rasic v R [2009] NSWCCA 202
SKA v The Queen [2011] HCA 13; 243 CLR 400
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Michael Dean Khan (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
G Corr (Applicant)
J Dwyer (Respondent)
Solicitors:
JPM Legal (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2008/11508
Decision under appeal

Citation:

R v Michael Dean Khan

Date of Decision:

2010-11-12 00:00:00

Before:

Cogswell DCJ

File Number(s):

2008/11508

Judgment

MACFARLAN JA: On 6 September 2010, at the conclusion of a trial in the District Court before Cogswell DCJ and a jury of 12, the jury found the applicant guilty of the following offence with which he and two co-accused had been charged and to which they had pleaded not guilty:

"On or about 4 September 2008, at Doonside, in the State of New South Wales, while in company with each other, [the accused] detained Maninder Singh without his consent and with the intention of holding him for ransom, and at the time of detaining in these circumstances, actual bodily harm was occasioned to Maninder Singh" (s 86(3) Crimes Act 1900).

The jury also found the co-accused, Mr Saurav Mahay and Mr Dushand Rana, guilty of the offence charged.

On 11 November 2010 the trial judge sentenced the applicant to imprisonment for a total term of four years and six months commencing on 9 September 2010, with a non-parole period of two years and eight months commencing on the same date.

The sole ground of appeal against his conviction that the applicant pressed at the hearing of the appeal was that the jury's verdict against him was unsafe and unsatisfactory. As this ground of appeal does not raise "a question of law alone" (see s 5(1)(a) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912), leave to appeal is required under s 5(1)(b) of that Act (Rasic v R [2009] NSWCCA 202 at [12]).

In essence, the Crown's case against the applicant was as follows. On the evening of 4 September 2008 the victim ("Maninder") voluntarily accompanied the applicant's co-accused (to whom I shall refer as Saurav and Dushand) in a visit to the applicant's home. After they had arrived, Maninder asked to leave but Saurav and Dushand told him that he would have to stay. During the evening Maninder was taken to the backyard of the home…

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 Khan v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Khan v The Queen [2012] NSWCCA 74
Case: [2012] NSWCCA 74
Decision Date: 27 April 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Khan v The Queen was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal. The appellant, Khan, had been convicted of detaining a person with the intention of holding them to ransom in the company of others, and causing actual bodily harm. The appeal was brought under section 6 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912, which allows for an appeal where the verdict is considered unsafe and unsatisfactory. The central issue before the court was whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.

The court examined whether the evidence presented by the Crown was adequate to establish the elements of the offence as defined in section 86(3) of the Crimes Act 1900. The court considered the nature of the detention, the intent behind it, the presence of others, and the infliction of actual bodily harm. The court meticulously reviewed the testimonies and other evidence provided during the trial to determine if it was enough to conclude that Khan was guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The court found that the evidence was robust and logically supported the conviction, confirming that the jury's decision was not only safe but also satisfactory.

Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, affirming Khan's conviction. The reasoning was that the evidence was sufficient to satisfy the elements of the offence, and the jury's verdict was well-founded. The appeal was thus without merit, and the original conviction stood. The court's decision was grounded on a thorough analysis of the presented evidence and the legal standards applicable to the case.

Orders