Legal Research
Cases
Singh v The King

Singh v The King

Case [2025] NSWCCA 34 12 March 2025

Appeal

Unreasonable Verdict

Credibility of Evidence

Corroboration

Miscarriage of Justice

Mahmood Direction

Judicial Review

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Singh v R [2025] NSWCCA 34
Hearing dates: 17 February 2025
Date of orders: 12 March 2025
Decision date: 12 March 2025
Before: Garling J at [1]
Chen J at [3]
Sweeney J at [141]
Decision:
(1) Grant leave to the applicant to appeal against his conviction.
(2) Dismiss the appeal.

Catchwords:
CRIME – Appeals – Appeal against conviction – Unreasonable verdict – Offence of aggravated indecent assault – Where complainant accepted difficulties in memory and recall of events – Whether internal discrepancies and inconsistencies present in complainant’s evidence – Whether complainant’s memories of sexual intercourse and lack of consent reliable – Whether complainant credible – Strong corroboration of complainant’s evidence – Inconsistencies immaterial to credibility and reliability – Jury’s verdict reasonable – Leave to appeal granted – Appeal dismissed
CRIME – Appeals – Appeal against conviction – Miscarriage of justice – Where complaint witness not called by Crown – Where trial judge did not give direction after brief enquiry from counsel – Where Crown opening indicated that witness would not be called – Whether Mahmood direction required – No expectation for Crown to call complaint witness – Complaint witness not essential or material – Absence of Mahmood direction to the benefit of the applicant’s submission to the jury – No requirement for Mahmood direction – No miscarriage of justice – Leave to appeal granted – Appeal dismissed

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)
Criminal Procedure Act1986 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Dansie v The Queen (2022) 274 CLR 651
De Silva v The Queen (2019) 268 CLR 57
Decision Restricted [2024] NSWCCA 81
Fantakis v R [2023] NSWCCA 3
HCF v The Queen [2023] HCA 35
Lee v R [2023] NSWCCA 203
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487
Mahmood v Western Australia (2008) 232 CLR 397
Quinn v R [2023] NSWCCA 229
Reed v R [2006] NSWCCA 314
The Queen v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308
The Queen v Hillier (2007) 228 CLR 618
VP v R [2021] NSWCCA 11
Z (a pseudonym) v R [2022] NSWCCA 8
Zhou v The Queen [2021] NSWCCA 278

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Karanbir Singh (Applicant)
Rex (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
M Licha (Applicant)
S Lind (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Pannu Lawyers (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2022/00108543
Publication restriction: Pursuant to s 578A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), publication of the name of the complainant or any matter that could identify them is prohibited.
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Citation:

N/A

Date of Decision:

09 June 2023

Before:

Grant DCJ

File Number(s):

2022/00108543

HEADNOTE

[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]

The applicant, Karanbir Singh, stood trial in the District Court for one count of aggravated sexual intercourse without consent alleged to have been committed on or about 11 April 2022, contrary to s 61J(1) of the Crimes…

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 Singh v The King

Details

AGLC: Singh v The King [2025] NSWCCA 34
Case: [2025] NSWCCA 34
Decision Date: 12 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Singh v The King, the defendant was convicted of aggravated indecent assault and sought to appeal against the verdict. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia, which was required to determine whether the jury's decision was unreasonable and whether there was a miscarriage of justice due to the Crown's decision not to call the complainant as a witness. The appellant argued that there were inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony which undermined her credibility and reliability, and that the absence of a Mahmood direction from the trial judge contributed to a miscarriage of justice.

The High Court considered the reliability of the complainant's evidence in light of her difficulties with memory and recall. The court concluded that despite internal discrepancies and inconsistencies in her testimony, the jury's conclusion that the appellant was guilty was reasonable, given the strong corroboration of the complainant's account. The court held that the inconsistencies were not so significant as to undermine the credibility and reliability of the complainant's memories of sexual intercourse and lack of consent. Therefore, the jury's verdict was not unreasonable.

Furthermore, the court examined whether there was a miscarriage of justice due to the Crown's decision not to call the complainant as a witness and the trial judge's failure to provide a Mahmood direction. The court found that there was no expectation for the Crown to call the complaint witness, as her testimony was not essential or material to the case. The absence of a Mahmood direction did not prejudice the appellant, as it actually benefited his submission to the jury. The court held that there was no miscarriage of justice and dismissed the appeal.

The High Court granted leave to appeal but dismissed the appeal against the conviction, upholding the original verdict. The court found that the jury's verdict was reasonable, and the absence of a Mahmood direction did not result in a miscarriage of justice. The appellant's arguments regarding the inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony and the Crown's decision not to call her as a witness were not sufficient to overturn the conviction.

Orders