Medium Neutral Citation: Taleb v R [2015] NSWCCA 105
Hearing dates: 26 November 2014
Date of orders: 20 May 2015
Decision date: 20 May 2015
Before: Price J at [1]
Davies J at [2]
Schmidt J at [143]
Decision:
(1) Leave to appeal in respect of Ground 2 and in respect of the sentence.
(2) Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sexual intercourse without consent –indecent assault - multiple charges from same incident - pre-trial rulings – application to cross-examine complainant about other sexual activity – whether other activity at time of and connected to alleged assaults – injuries sustained by complainant – proper construction of s 293 (4)(c) Criminal Procedure Act – whether material disclosed by prosecution - unreasonable verdicts – inconsistency of verdicts – sentence – whether sentence manifestly excessive
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Dimian v R (1995) 83 A Crim R 358
JWM v R [2014] NSWCCA 248
Makarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; (2005) 228 CLR 357
MFA v The Queen [2002] HCA 53; (2002) 213 CLR 606
Poniris v R [2014] NSWCCA 100
R v Baden Cram [2008] NSWDC 225
R v Burton [2013] NSWCCA 335
R v Morgan (1993) 30 NSWLR 543
R v Mosegaard [2005] NSWCCA 361
R v TK [2009] NSWCCA 151; (2009) 74 NSWLR 299
R v Tubou [2001] NSWCCA 243
Rolfe v R [2007] NSWCCA 155
Shepherd v R [2011] NSWCCA 245
Spratt v Director of Public Prosecutions [2010] NSWSC 355
Sulaeman v R [2013] NSWCCA 283
Vickers v R [2006] NSWCCA 60; (2006) 160 A Crim R 195
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Rabih Taleb (Appellant)
Crown
Representation:
Counsel:
G James QC and I Todd (Appellant)
Natalie Adams SC and S Palaniappan (Crown)
Solicitors:
Zahr & Zahr Lawyers (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)

File Number(s): 2012/135215
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of NSW

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

14 February 2014

Before:

Huggett DCJ

File Number(s):

2012/135215

Judgment

PRICE J: I agree with Davies J.
DAVIES J: On 9 September 2013 the Appellant stood trial before her Honour Judge Huggett DCJ and a jury on six counts as follows:

Counts 1– 4: Indecent assault. The maximum penalty is five years’ imprisonment;

Court 5: Sexual intercourse without consent. The maximum penalty is 14 years’ imprisonment and there is a standard non-parole period of seven years;

Count 6: Commit an act of indecency towards a person over 16 years. The maximum penalty is imprisonment for 18 months.

The Appellant was convicted in respect of counts 1, 4 and 5 but was found not guilty in relation to counts 2, 3 and 6.
On 14 February 2014 he was sentenced by Judge Huggett as follows:

Count 1: A fixed term of imprisonment for 12 months commencing 14 February 2014…

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 Taleb v R

Details

AGLC: Taleb v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 105
Case: [2015] NSWCCA 105
Decision Date: 20 May 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of Australia, the case of Taleb v R involved a criminal appeal by the accused, Taleb, against his convictions for sexual intercourse without consent and indecent assault. The charges arose from a single incident, and the appellant sought to challenge the admissibility of certain evidence, the consistency of the verdicts, and the sentence imposed. The case hinged on the interpretation of statutory provisions and the principles governing the admissibility of evidence and the proportionality of sentences.

The legal issues before the court included the admissibility of evidence concerning the complainant's other sexual activity, the relevance and connection of such evidence to the charges, and the application of statutory provisions governing the disclosure of material by the prosecution. Additionally, the court examined whether the verdicts were inconsistent and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

The court found that the trial judge had correctly admitted evidence of the complainant's other sexual activity, as it was relevant and connected to the alleged assaults. The court held that the trial judge properly assessed the evidence and concluded that it was not unreasonable to infer that the complainant's injuries were caused by the appellant. Regarding the verdicts, the court determined that they were not inconsistent. Finally, the court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, as it took into account the nature and circumstances of the offences.

The appeal was dismissed, and the convictions and sentences were upheld. The court's decision emphasised the importance of the proper application of statutory provisions and the principles governing the admissibility of evidence and the proportionality of sentences in criminal cases.

Orders