R v Khatri - [2025] VSC 639

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2025 0029

THE KING

RITA KHATRI

---

JUDGE:	Gorton J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	3 October 2025
DATE OF SENTENCE:	14 October 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Khatri
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 639

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Reckless conduct endangering life – Attempting to pervert course of justice – Accused bought kerosene and unsuccessfully tried to set fire to herself and her young child at family home – Accused called child’s carer from custody and sought them to convince child to withdraw statement – Accused was experiencing distress in context of marriage breakdown and loss of opportunity to stay in Australia – No diagnosed psychiatric injury or illness – Verdins principles not enlivened – Early pleas of guilty – Accused regretful but no genuine remorse indicative of acceptance of responsibility – DPP v Deakin [2021] VSC 719 – DPP v LK [2020] VSC 193 – DPP v Bennett [2004] VSC 207 – Guden v The Queen (2010) 28 VR 288 – Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) ss 22, 320 – Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) ss 5(2AA), 11(2).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms Kathryn Hamill and Ms Lauren Gurry	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr Tim Marsh	Law and Advocacy Centre for Women

HIS HONOUR:

A The offences

Ms Rita Khatri, on 12 June 2025 you pleaded guilty to:
(a)On 26 June 2024, without lawful excuse, recklessly engaging in conduct that placed your then seven-year old son in danger of death by pouring kerosene on him and yourself and in your vicinity lighting a fire. Under s 22 of the Crimes Act 1958, the maximum penalty for this offence is 10 years’ imprisonment; and
(b)On 28 June 2024, with the intent of perverting the course of justice, doing an act which had the tendency to pervert the course of justice by prevailing upon Shilpa Mehta to persuade your son to make a statement that the events leading to the attendance of emergency services on 26 June 2024 was all an accident. This is a common law offence and the maximum penalty under s 320 of the Crimes Act 1958 is 25 years’ imprisonment.

B Pseudonyms

You have sought, through counsel, that I use pseudonyms for both you and your son. I accept that there is a public interest that your son, as a young victim, not be named in these reasons. There will be occasions where it is appropriate to use a pseudonym for an offender to protect the identity of a child victim, however, pseudonyms should not ordinarily be used just to avoid a person guilty of a crime being identified as having been guilty of that crime and there is no evidence before me that your prospects of rehabilitation will be affected if you are named. Here, your son is living overseas with his father and has a different surname. I will not…

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 R v Khatri

Details

AGLC: R v Khatri [2025] VSC 639
Case: [2025] VSC 639
Decision Date: 14 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Khatri involved the accused who attempted to commit an act of reckless conduct endangering life and subsequently attempted to pervert the course of justice. The case was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The accused, while experiencing personal distress due to a marriage breakdown and the loss of her opportunity to stay in Australia, attempted to set fire to herself and her young child using kerosene at their family home. The attempt was unsuccessful. Furthermore, while in custody, the accused contacted the child’s carer and attempted to persuade them to convince the child to withdraw their statement. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for these serious offences.

The central legal issues before the court were the assessment of the appropriate level of punishment for the accused's actions under the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) and the application of the Verdins principles to the case. The court needed to consider the principles of culpability, deterrence, rehabilitation, and denunciation in sentencing the accused. Additionally, the court had to weigh the early guilty pleas and the accused's expressions of regret against the lack of genuine remorse and acceptance of responsibility. The court also had to consider relevant case law, including DPP v Deakin [2021] VSC 719, DPP v LK [2020] VSC 193, DPP v Bennett [2004] VSC 207, and Guden v The Queen (2010) 28 VR 288.

The court held that the Verdins principles did not apply to this case as the accused did not have a diagnosed psychiatric injury or illness. The court acknowledged the accused's early guilty pleas and expressions of regret but noted the absence of genuine remorse and acceptance of responsibility. The court considered the nature and circumstances of the offences, the personal distress experienced by the accused, and the need for appropriate deterrence and denunciation. After weighing all relevant factors, the court determined that a custodial sentence was necessary. The court sentenced the accused to a term of imprisonment with specific considerations for her personal circumstances and the potential for rehabilitation.

The final orders of the court included the sentencing of the accused to a term of imprisonment, with the specifics of the sentence taking into account the various mitigating and aggravating factors presented. The court also noted the importance of rehabilitation and the potential for the accused to address her underlying issues while serving her sentence.

Orders