R v Ali

Case [2025] QCA 164

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Ali [2025] QCA 164

PARTIES:

R
v
ALI, Tariq
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 36 of 2023
DC No 48 of 2022

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Toowoomba – Date of Conviction: 9 March 2023 (Smith DCJA)

DELIVERED ON:

5 September 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

14 August 2025

JUDGES:

Mullins P and Boddice and Bradley JJA

ORDER:

The appeal is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was convicted after trial before a jury of having unlawfully and indecently assaulted a female complainant – where the indictment alleged one count of unlawful indecent assault – where that assault was particularised as kissing the complainant on the face and/or neck, one or more times without her consent – whether the jury’s verdict is unreasonable and cannot be supported by the evidence

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – EFFECT OF MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION – where the appellant submits that “sexual intention” or “sexual gratification” are not elements of an offence of indecent assault – whether the trial judge erred in directing the jury on “sexual intention” and “sexual gratification”

Dansie v The Queen (2022) 274 CLR 651; [2022] HCA 25, applied
Pell v The Queen (2020) 268 CLR 123; [2020] HCA 12, applied
R v McGrady[2020] QCA 192, cited

COUNSEL:

R Salehkon (sol) for the appellant
M B Lehane for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Toowoomba Multicultural Legal Service Inc for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

  1. MULLINS P:  I have undertaken an independent assessment of the evidence adduced at the trial and agree with Boddice JA’s conclusion that the verdict of the jury was not unreasonable.  I otherwise agree with the reasons of Boddice JA and that the appeal should be dismissed.

  2. BODDICE JA:  On 9 March 2023, a jury found the appellant guilty of having unlawfully and indecently assaulted a female complainant on 16 August 2020.

  3. The appellant appeals that conviction, relying on four grounds.

  4. First, that the jury’s verdict is unreasonable and cannot be supported by the evidence.  Second, that the trial judge erred in refusing a submission of no case.  Third, that the trial judge erred in directing the jury on “sexual intention” and “sexual gratification”.  Fourth, that there has been a miscarriage of justice by reason of the trial judge failing to properly, or adequately direct the jury on the relevance of the complainant’s intoxication to her reliability and credibility.

    Indictment

  5. The indictment alleged one count of unlawful indecent assault.  That assault was particularised as kissing the complainant on the face and/or neck, one or more times without her consent.

    Evidence

    Complainant

  6. On the evening of 15 August 2020, the complainant went with some friends to listen to a live band.…

Continue reading R v Ali

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Ali [2025] QCA 164
Case
[2025] QCA 164
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Ali, the appellant sought to appeal a conviction for unlawful and indecent assault, contending that the jury's verdict was unreasonable and not supported by the evidence. The conviction stemmed from the appellant's actions of kissing the complainant on the face and neck without her consent, an act that was alleged to have taken place while she was intoxicated and upset outside a nightclub. The complainant had entered a taxi and, after providing her address, became emotional, explaining to the taxi driver that she had seen her ex-partner leave with another woman. The driver then exhibited inappropriate behaviour, including kissing her face and neck despite her lack of consent and distress.

The legal issues before the court included whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable and could not be supported by the evidence, and whether the trial judge misdirected the jury by including "sexual intention" or "sexual gratification" as elements of the offence of indecent assault. The appellant argued that such elements were not necessary for a conviction and that the trial judge's inclusion of them was erroneous. The court had to determine if the judge's direction constituted a misdirection or non-direction that had a significant impact on the jury's verdict.

The court found that the evidence presented was sufficient for the jury to conclude that the appellant's actions were unlawful and indecent. The complainant's account of the events was consistent and corroborated by other witnesses, including her ex-partner and friends, as well as her statements to emergency services. The court emphasised the role of the jury in evaluating the evidence and concluded that the jury's verdict, finding the appellant guilty, was supported by the evidence. The court also determined that the trial judge's inclusion of "sexual intention" or "sexual gratification" as elements of the offence did not amount to a misdirection that would warrant a new trial. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the conviction.

No further orders were made beyond the dismissal of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal is dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

The indictment alleged one count of unlawful indecent assault. That assault was particularised as kissing the complainant on the face and/or neck, one or more times without her consent.EvidenceComplainant On the evening of 15 August 2020, the complainant went with some friends to listen to a live band. That performance finished around midnight. The complainant drank a number of vodka drinks and also a shot. After the concert ended the complainant went to a hotel. The complainant’s friends decided to leave as there was a line outside the hotel for entry. The complainant saw other friends waiting in the line. She entered the hotel with those friends. The complainant consumed more alcohol. After some hours, the complainant left with those people to travel to another nightclub. There she consumed one more alcoholic drink. By that stage the complainant felt drunk. At the nightclub the complainant saw her ex-partner. She realised that he was leaving with another female. The complainant was upset as they had not broken up long before. She told her friends she was going to the bathroom. Whilst she was in the bathroom, she texted her ex-partner. Shortly after, security called out that the nightclub was closing. The complainant exited the front door of the nightclub. When the complainant went outside, she felt drunk. There was a taxi rank in front of the nightclub. She entered the first taxi and sat in the front passenger seat. The complainant gave the taxi driver her address. The complainant began to cry. She explained to the driver that she had seen her ex-partner leaving with another woman. The complainant apologised for crying so much. The taxi driver asked if there was someone at home. The complainant explained she had two children, but they were at their father’s house. When the taxi arrived at the complainant’s house, the taxi driver helped her out and gave her a hug. The complainant described it as an “arms around, supporting type gesture”.[1] The taxi driver then escorted the complainant into her house. The complainant could not remember walking through the front door or down the hall. She next remembered being seated on her bed with the taxi driver on top of her lap, pushing her shoulders back so that her head was lying on the bed. The taxi driver started kissing her on and around her face and neck, specifically the cheeks, chin and neck area. The complainant did not think he kissed her lips as she was turning her head. The taxi driver was making a sound as if to settle and quieten her down. She tried to act more drunk. She intimated that it was not right, but could not remember the words she used to the taxi driver. She believed she said no. The complainant said she did not consent to the taxi driver kissing her face or neck.[1]AB 106/47. The complainant could not remember how long it took for the kissing to stop. The taxi driver had his mobile phone in his hand. He was asking the complainant to give him her number. The complainant changed the last digit so that it was an incorrect number. The taxi driver asked her to repeat the number which she did, giving the same incorrect number. As the taxi driver left, he put her house keys on the bedside table.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

At the conclusion of the Crown case, the appellant elected to neither give nor call evidence.ConsiderationGround 1 The determination of a ground of appeal that a jury verdict is unreasonable and not supported by the evidence requires this Court to independently assess the record to determine whether, on a consideration of the evidence as a whole, it was open to the jury to be satisfied of the appellant’s guilt of the offence, beyond reasonable doubt.[8] Due regard is to be accorded to the role of a jury in the criminal trial.[9] However, if there are inconsistencies, discrepancies, inadequacies or other evidence which, even allowing for the advantages enjoyed by the jury, are of such a nature that a reasonable doubt ought to have been entertained, the verdict will be considered unreasonable.[10][8]Dansie v The Queen (2022) 274 CLR 651 at [35] (Dansie).[9]Dansie at [9] citing M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487 at 493.[10]Pell v The Queen (2020) 268 CLR 123 at 145, [39]. The appellant submitted that it was not open to the jury to find him guilty of sexual assault, as kissing, even without consent, was insufficient. There must be touching of breasts or genitalia to constitute the offence. There is no substance in the appellant’s contentions. The offence of sexual assault, relevantly, is committed if a person unlawfully and indecently assaults another person. An assault is unlawful, if there is an application of force, to another, without that person’s consent. An assault is indecent if the act offends against currently accepted standards of decency. Indecency must always be judged in the light of time, place and circumstances. In the present case, the issues for the jury were whether the appellant had kissed the complainant’s face and/or neck; whether that kissing of the face and neck was without the complainant’s consent; and whether that kissing was indecent. As to the first two issues, there was evidence from the complainant of the appellant kissing her face and neck, without her consent. The complainant maintained a consistency in that account. That consistency was supported by preliminary complaint evidence from her ex-partner and two friends and by her account to the triple-zero operator and the first responding police. Nothing in the cross-examination of the complainant supported a conclusion that the jury had to have a reasonable doubt as to the reliability and credibility of the complainant’s account of that kissing. The element of indecency arose for consideration by the jury because the time, place and circumstances of that kissing to the face and neck, was capable of being accepted by the jury as offending against currently accepted standards of decency. The appellant, a taxi driver, had, on the complainant’s evidence, asked her questions about whether a person was at home, in circumstances where she was overtly upset and distressed and suffering significant intoxication. Thereafter, he had entered her home, and taken her to the bedroom, climbed on top of her, pushed her back on the bed and kissed her face and neck, without her consent. Those circumstances plainly gave rise to events which may be regarded by the community as indecent. It offended against currently accepted standards of decency.