Moharaminia v The King - [2025] VSCA 159

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2024 0027

MERSHAD MOHARAMINIA	Applicant
v
THE KING	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	BEACH, KENNEDY and TAYLOR JJA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	2 July 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	4 July 2025
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSCA 159
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2023] VCC 2287 (Judge Carlin)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Conviction – Applicant charged with seven charges of sexual assault and two charges of rape – Offending occurred during massage service – Directed acquittals on two sexual assault charges – Jury acquittals on two sexual assault charges and one rape charge – Whether not guilty verdicts inconsistent with guilty verdicts on three sexual assault charges and rape charge – Differing verdicts logical and reasonable – No inconsistency – Leave to appeal refused.

MacKenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348, applied.
MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; R v Ware [1997] 1 VR 647; Sladek v The King [2024] VSCA 119; Booth v The King [2024] VSCA 318; Fiddes v The King [2025] VSCA 141, referred to.

---

Counsel
Applicant:		Mr C Mandy SC with Mr S J Tovey
Respondent:		Mr R Gibson KC
Solicitors
Applicant:	Doogue + George Defence Lawyers
Respondent:	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

BEACH JA
KENNEDY JA
TAYLOR JA:

Introduction and overview

The applicant stood trial in the County Court on an indictment alleging seven charges of sexual assault and two charges of rape. All offending was alleged to have occurred during a remedial deep tissue massage given by the applicant to the complainant, Isabelle Yang.[1]
[1]A pseudonym.
The sexual assault charges were particularised as follows:
Charge 1: [The applicant] pulled down the underwear of [Isabelle Yang] who was lying face down, he massaged her buttocks and spread her buttock cheeks and touched her anus.
Charge 2: [The applicant] removed the underwear of [Isabelle Yang] whilst she was lying on her back and spread open the legs of [Isabelle Yang], massaged her inner thighs and the joint between the thigh and hips near her vagina.
Charge 3: [The applicant] requested [Isabelle Yang] to roll onto her left side and he massaged [Isabelle Yang] between the top of her buttock cheeks and just above her anus.
Charge 4: [The applicant] requested [Isabelle Yang] to roll onto her right side and massaged [Isabelle Yang] between her buttock cheeks and just above her anus.
Charge 5: [The applicant] touched the anus of [Isabelle Yang] and massaged around her anus in circular motion (sic) with his finger.
Charge 7: [The applicant] massaged [Isabelle Yang] between her anus and vagina.
Charge 9: [The applicant] touched and massaged the breasts of [Isabelle Yang].
The two rape charges concerned digital penetration of Ms Yang’s anus (charge 6) and vagina (charge 8).
At the end of the evidence the judge directed acquittals on charges 1 and 3 on the basis that there was not sufficient evidence to support each charge. The jury acquitted the…

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 Moharaminia v The King

Details

AGLC: Moharaminia v The King [2025] VSCA 159
Case: [2025] VSCA 159
Decision Date: 4 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Moharaminia v The King concerns an appeal by the applicant, who was originally convicted on three charges of sexual assault and one charge of rape. The offences were alleged to have occurred during a massage service provided by the applicant. The jury acquitted the applicant of two charges of sexual assault and one charge of rape, while the trial judge directed acquittals on two further charges of sexual assault. The applicant sought leave to appeal against his conviction, arguing that the jury's verdicts were inconsistent with the guilty verdicts on the remaining charges. The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the differing verdicts were logical and reasonable and whether they indicated any inconsistency that would warrant setting aside the convictions.

The Court of Appeal considered whether the differing verdicts were logical and reasonable in the context of the evidence presented. It examined the principles established in previous cases such as MFA v The Queen, R v Ware, and others, which outline the circumstances under which verdicts can be considered inconsistent. The Court found that the verdicts in this case were logical and reasonable, as the jury and the trial judge were entitled to draw different inferences from the evidence in relation to the various charges. The differing verdicts did not indicate any inconsistency that would warrant setting aside the convictions on the charges where the applicant was found guilty.

In light of the above, the Court of Appeal held that the differing verdicts were logical and reasonable and did not indicate any inconsistency that would necessitate setting aside the convictions. Consequently, the Court refused the applicant leave to appeal. The applicant's convictions for three charges of sexual assault and one charge of rape were upheld.

The final orders of the Court of Appeal were that the applicant's application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the convictions were affirmed.

Orders