Australia, April 12 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on March 12:

1. GARLING J: I agree with the orders proposed by Chen J and with His Honour's reasons.

2. I have considered and assessed the whole of the evidence at the trial. In my opinion, it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the applicant. I am of the further opinion, that the verdict of guilty was the only rational verdict for the jury to reach having regard to the strength of the evidence in the Crown case. I do not have any doubt at all of the applicant's guilt of the offence.

3. CHEN J: By indictment dated 31 March 2023, Karanbir Singh ('the applicant') was charged with having non-consensual sexual intercourse with the complainant, on 11 April 2022, in circumstances of aggravation, namely, that at the time of the offence, the applicant did recklessly inflict actual bodily harm upon the complainant - an offence contrary to s 61J(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).

4. The applicant entered a plea of not guilty to the charge.

5. On 9 June 2023, the applicant, following a trial by jury before Grant DCJ, was found guilty.

6. The applicant was sentenced by Grant DCJ on 28 August 2023. His Honour imposed an aggregate sentence of six years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of four years imprisonment, to commence on 9 June 2023, and expiring on 8 June 2029. The applicant is eligible for parole on 8 June 2027.

The appeal: introduction and overview

7. By notice of appeal filed 19 August 2024, the applicant appeals against his conviction only, raising two grounds:

1) that the verdict of guilty was unreasonable and "cannot be supported based on evidence" (ground 1); and,

2) that a "miscarriage of justice occurred because the trial judge refused to give a Mahmoud [sic] direction" (ground 2).

8. The applicant's written submissions referred to ss 5 and 6 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) as the basis for the appeal. However, neither the applicant's written submissions, nor oral ones, sought to identify a question of law alone in relation to any of the grounds and, thus, whether the appeal is as of right (s 5(1)(a) of the Criminal Appeal Act) or by leave (s 5(1)(b) of the Criminal Appeal Act).

9. In my view neither the first ground of appeal, which engages the first limb of s 6(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act, nor the second ground of appeal, which by its terms engages the third limb of s 6(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act, raise any "question of law alone". Accordingly, each ground of appeal requires leave pursuant to s 5(1)(b) of the Criminal Appeal Act.

10. Although I consider that leave to appeal should be granted, the appeal should be dismissed. My reasons for so concluding follow.

*Rest of the document and Footnotes can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/195820998601a4be66577f6b)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.