Khorami v R; R v Khorami [2021] NSWCCA 228

Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Khorami v R; R v Khorami [2021] NSWCCA 228 Hearing dates: 30 July 2021 Date of orders: 24 September 2021 Decision date: 24 September 2021 Before: Bell P at [1]; Johnson J at [44]; Cavanagh J at [425]. Decision: Conviction appeal: 1. Grant leave to appeal against conviction. 2. Appeal against conviction dismissed. Crown sentence appeal: 3. By majority, appeal dismissed. Catchwords: CRIME – appeal against conviction – Applicant found guilty by jury of administering an intoxicating substance with intent to commit an indictable offence (aggravated indecent assault) under s. 38(a) Crimes Act 1900 (one count), aggravated indecent assault under s. 61M(1) Crimes Act 1900 (19 counts) and committing an aggravated act of indecency under s. 61O(1A) Crimes Act 1900 (two counts) – ground of appeal contends that guilty verdicts on 10 of 22 counts were unreasonable or cannot be supported on the evidence – Applicant a sleep technician charged with committing offences against five separate female victims during course of overnight sleep studies at medical facility – consideration of totality of evidence – sleep studies recorded on CCTV but not all acts of Applicant clearly visible in recordings – significant role of tendency directions in determination of verdicts – held that verdicts of guilty on each of the 10 challenged counts was open to the jury – conviction appeal dismissed CRIME – Crown sentence appeal – Applicant sentenced to aggregate term of imprisonment for six years with non-parole period of three years and nine months – five female victims aged between 16 and 29 years – offences committed over six-week period in 2018 – Applicant qualified as medical practitioner working as sleep technician – Applicant entered sleep study room and committed offences against victims whilst purporting to touch them for purposes associated with the sleep study – whether error in assessment of objective seriousness concerning six of 22 offences (ground 1) – whether error in failing to provide reasons as to how Applicant's prior good character taken into account (ground 2) – whether aggregate sentence manifestly inadequate (ground 3) – ground 1 upheld in part (by majority) – ground 2 rejected – ground 3 rejected (by majority) – Crown sentence appeal dismissed (by majority) Legislation Cited: Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Crimes Act 1900 Criminal Appeal Act 1912 Health Practitioner Regulation National Law 2009 Public Health Regulation 2012 Cases Cited: BG v R [2020] NSWCCA 295 Bray v R [2018] NSWCCA 301 Brown v R [2014] NSWCCA 215 CMB v Attorney General (NSW) (2015) 256 CLR 346; [2015] HCA 9 Corby v R [2010] NSWCCA 146 Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321; [2000] HCA 54 Director of Public Prosecutions v Klep [2006] VSCA 98 DL v R [2020] NSWCCA 164 Einfeld v R (2010) 200 A Crim R 1; [2010] NSWCCA 87 EJDG v R [2012] NSWCCA 251 Elomar v R (2014) 300 FLR 323; [2014] NSWCCA 303 Everett v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 295; [1994] HCA 49 FL v R [2020] NSWCCA 114 Franklin v R [2019] NSWCCA 325 Gardiner v R (2006) 162 A Crim R 233; [2006] NSWCCA 190 Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462; [2011] HCA 49 Hawi v R (2014) 244 A Crim R 169; [2014] NSWCCA 83 Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40 Hughes v The Queen (2017) 263 CLR 338; [2017] HCA 20 Irmak v R; Dagdanasar v R [2021] NSWCCA 178 JM v R (2014) 246 A Crim R 528; [2014] NSWCCA 297 Jung v R [2017] NSWCCA 24 Kahler v R [2021] NSWCCA 40 Kearsley v R (2017) 265 A Crim R 233; [2017] NSWCCA 28 Kelley v R [2021] NSWCCA 173 Lee v R [2016] NSWCCA 146 Lees v R [2019] NSWCCA 65 Libke v The Queen (2007) 230 CLR 559; [2007] HCA 30 LN v R [2020] NSWCCA 131 M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63 Mackenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348; [1996] HCA 35 Magro v R [2020] NSWCCA 25 Manojlovic v R; R v Manojlovic [2020] NSWCCA 315 McIntosh v R [2015] NSWCCA 184 Mohindra v R [2020] NSWCCA 340 MRW v R [2011] NSWCCA 260 Mulato v R [2006] NSWCCA 282 Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39 Nguyen v The Queen (2016) 256 CLR 656; [2016] HCA 17 Parente v R (2017) 96 NSWLR 633; [2017] NSWCCA 284 Pell v The Queen (2020) 268 CLR 123; [2020] HCA 12 Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295; [1997] HCA 26 R v Amati (2019) 279 A Crim R 73; [2019] NSWCCA 193 R v Gommeson (2014) 243 A Crim R 534; [2014] NSWCCA 159 R v JRD [2007] NSWCCA 55 R v Kennedy (2019) 101 NSWLR 121; [2019] NSWCCA 242 R v MAK; R v MSK (2006) 167 A Crim R 159; [2006] NSWCCA 381 R v Mulligan [2016] NSWCCA 47 R v Simpson (2001) 53 NSWLR 704; [2001] NSWCCA 534 R v Stoupe [2015] NSWCCA 175 RC v R; R v RC [2020] NSWCCA 76 Ryan v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 267; [2001] HCA 21 Siganto v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 656; [1998] HCA 74 Taitoko v R [2020] NSWCCA 43 Taylor v R [2020] NSWCCA 355 Tepania v R (2018) 275 A Crim R 233; [2018] NSWCCA 247 The Queen v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308; [2016] HCA 35 Vaughan v R [2020] NSWCCA 3 Waterfall v R [2019] NSWCCA 281 ZA v R (2017) 267 A Crim R 105; [2017] NSWCCA 132 Zahorsky v R [2013] NSWCCA 268 Zhao v R [2019] NSWCCA 203 Texts Cited: --- Category: Principal judgment Parties: Ali Khorami (Applicant) Regina (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Ms J Paingakulam (Applicant) Ms M Millward (Respondent)