Sriranjan Sriranganathan v The King - [2024] VSCA 257

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2023 0118

SRIRANJAN SRIRANGANATHAN	Applicant
v
THE KING	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	PRIEST, NIALL and TAYLOR JJA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	10 October 2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	31 October 2024
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VSCA 257
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Sriranganathan (County Court of Victoria, Judge Karapanagiotidis, 14 June 2023)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Rape – Whether verdict of guilt on rape charge inconsistent with verdicts of acquittal on other rape charges – Logical and reasonable basis for different verdicts – Whether trial miscarried due to enlargement of prosecution case – No miscarriage of justice where trial counsel for applicant identified no prejudice from enlargement – Leave to appeal refused.

Criminal Procedure Act 2009, ss 182, 224, 233; Jury Directions Act 2015, s 46.

King v The Queen (1986) 161 CLR 423; MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; Parker (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2021] VSCA 348; R v Tangye (1997) 92 A Crim R 545, considered.

---

Counsel
Applicant:		Mr G Chipkin
Respondent:		Mr D Glynn
Solicitors
Applicant:	Doogue and George
Respondent:	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

PRIEST JA:

I have had the considerable advantage of reading in draft the reasons for judgment of Niall and Taylor JJA. For the reasons they advance, I agree that the application for leave to appeal against conviction should be refused. In addition, however, I wish to add some brief observations of my own concerning ground 2.
For the purposes of the applicant’s trial, the elements of the offence of rape were: first, the applicant intentionally sexually penetrated the complainant, ‘LH’; secondly, LH did not consent to that penetration; and, thirdly, the applicant did not reasonably believe that LH consented to the penetration.[1]
[1]Crimes Act 1958 (as amended by the Crimes Amendment (Sexual Offences) Act 2016), s 38(1).
At the time of the alleged offence, circumstances in which a person did not consent to an act of sexual penetration included, but were not limited to, where the person was so affected by alcohol as to be incapable of consenting (or withdrawing consent) to the act.[2]
[2]Ibid ss 36(2)(e) and (f).
If the prosecution seeks to establish a complainant’s lack of consent based upon an allegation that the complainant was so affected by alcohol as to be incapable of consenting (or withdrawing consent) to the relevant act of sexual penetration, then it is incumbent upon the prosecution to open the case to the jury on that basis.[3] As I said in Parker:[4]
In a trial for rape (or other sexual offence), if reliance is sought to be placed on s 36(2)(e) [of the Crimes Act 1958] as a basis for conviction, axiomatically it is incumbent upon the prosecution in unequivocal terms to disclose that reliance from the outset. A person accused of rape (or other sexual offence) is entitled to know before a trial begins the manner in…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Sriranjan Sriranganathan v The King and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2024] VSCA 257
Decision Date: 31 October 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sriranjan Sriranganathan appealed against his conviction for rape, arguing that the verdict of guilt on the rape charge was inconsistent with his acquittals on other rape charges, and that the trial miscarried due to the enlargement of the prosecution case. The appeal was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary legal issues before the court were whether there was a logical and reasonable basis for the different verdicts, and whether the trial miscarried due to the enlargement of the prosecution case.

The court considered the legal principles established in previous cases such as King v The Queen, MFA v The Queen, Parker v The Queen, and R v Tangye. It held that the jury's verdicts could be consistent if there was a logical and reasonable basis for the different verdicts, and that a trial did not necessarily miscarry simply because the prosecution case was enlarged during the trial. The court found that the trial counsel for the appellant had identified no prejudice from the enlargement of the prosecution case, and therefore, there was no miscarriage of justice.

Based on the reasoning and legal principles, the court found that there was a logical and reasonable basis for the different verdicts, and that the trial did not miscarry due to the enlargement of the prosecution case. The appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal was refused. The appellant's conviction for rape was upheld.

Orders