Saab (a pseudonym) v The King - [2025] VSCA 211

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2025 0021

IMRAN SAAB (A PSEUDONYM)[1]	Applicant
v
THE KING	Respondent

[1]To ensure that there is no possibility of the identification of a victim of sexual offending, this judgment has been anonymised by the adoption of pseudonyms in place of the name of the respondent and his victim.

---

JUDGES:	BEACH, WALKER and TAYLOR JJA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	2 September 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	5 September 2025
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSCA 211
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2024] VCC 1351 (Judge Hassan)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Conviction – Rape (8 charges), common assault (1 charge) – Relationship evidence – Other misconduct evidence – Whether prosecutor’s address invited jury to engage in tendency reasoning – Whether judge’s charge invited jury to engage in tendency reasoning, or did not adequately protect against risk jury might engage in tendency reasoning – Whether prosecutor reversed onus of proof – Whether judge’s failure to give a direction required by s 27(2)(a) of Jury Directions Act 2015 gave rise to substantial miscarriage of justice – Appeal allowed – Retrial ordered.

Jury Directions Act 2015, ss 12, 27 and 29.

---

Counsel
Applicant:		Mr DA Dann KC with Mr J O’Connor
Respondent:		Mr J Dickie
Solicitors
Applicant:	Valos Black & Associates
Respondent:	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

BEACH JA
WALKER JA
TAYLOR JA:

In 2015, the applicant (who was then 23) and the complainant (who was then 17) married. It was an arranged marriage. On the complainant’s account (an account which was heavily contested by the applicant and members of his family), it was not a happy marriage. The complainant left the applicant and permanently separated from him (taking their two children with her) in 2021.
On 21 March 2024, following a 14-day trial, a jury found the applicant guilty of eight charges of rape (charges 2 to 5 and 7 to 10)[2] and one charge of common assault (charge 6).[3] The complainant was the alleged victim of each charge, and each charge was alleged to have occurred during the period the applicant and the complainant were living together as husband and wife.
[2]Contrary to s 38(1) of the Crimes Act 1958 as amended by the Crimes Amendment (Sexual Offences and Other Matters) Act 2014.
[3]Contrary to the common law. The jury acquitted the applicant of a charge of making a threat to kill, contrary to s 20 of the Crimes Act 1958. The alleged victim was again the complainant.
On 30 August 2024, the judge sentenced the applicant to a total effective sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 10 years.[4]
[4]DPP v Saab (a pseudonym) [2024] VCC 1351.
The applicant now seeks leave to appeal against his convictions. His proposed grounds of appeal are:
1. A substantial miscarriage of justice occurred as:
(a)the prosecutor’s closing address invited the jury to engage in tendency reasoning, or create a risk that the jury would…

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 Saab (a pseudonym) v The King

Details

AGLC: Saab (a pseudonym) v The King [2025] VSCA 211
Case: [2025] VSCA 211
Decision Date: 5 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Saab v The King, the defendant appealed against convictions for eight counts of rape and one count of common assault. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appeal centred around the admissibility and handling of evidence of relationship history and other misconduct by the defendant. Specifically, the appeal questioned whether the prosecutor’s address to the jury invited them to engage in prohibited tendency reasoning, whether the judge’s charge to the jury similarly invited or failed to adequately protect against the risk of such reasoning, and whether the prosecutor effectively reversed the onus of proof. Additionally, the appeal considered whether the judge's failure to provide a direction required by section 27(2)(a) of the Jury Directions Act 2015 resulted in a substantial miscarriage of justice.

The court examined the prosecutor’s address to determine if it invited the jury to engage in reasoning based on the defendant’s disposition to commit the crimes, as prohibited by common law. The court also assessed whether the judge's charge to the jury correctly guided them on the use of evidence of other acts, ensuring it was not misused to infer propensity. Furthermore, the court scrutinised whether the prosecutor had effectively reversed the onus of proof by suggesting the defendant should justify his innocence regarding the other acts. The appeal also questioned whether the judge's omission to give a specific direction, as required by section 27(2)(a) of the Jury Directions Act 2015, led to a substantial miscarriage of justice.

The High Court found that the prosecutor's address did indeed invite the jury to engage in prohibited tendency reasoning, and that the judge’s charge did not adequately guard against such risk. The court also concluded that the prosecutor reversed the onus of proof by suggesting the defendant should justify his innocence regarding the other acts. Additionally, the court found that the judge’s failure to give the required direction under section 27(2)(a) of the Jury Directions Act 2015 led to a substantial miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and a retrial was ordered to ensure a fair trial free from the errors identified.

The final orders included allowing the appeal, setting aside the convictions, and ordering a retrial. The court emphasised the importance of correctly handling evidence of other acts and ensuring the jury is properly directed to avoid propensity reasoning and to maintain the proper allocation of the onus of proof.

Orders