The Allegation

​

Monireh Asadi was convicted after the prosecution alleged that she was involved in a staged motor vehicle accident designed to support fraudulent insurance claims.

The prosecution alleged that:

• the collision between two vehicles on 18 July 2015 was deliberately staged

• Asadi was involved in arranging or participating in the staged collision

• she was outside her vehicle when the collision occurred and then returned to the vehicle before emergency services arrived

• she pretended to have been trapped and injured inside the vehicle

• she subsequently provided false accounts of the accident and her injuries to medical practitioners

• she made fraudulent insurance claims for personal injuries and damage to her vehicle

• she participated in a criminal group and dishonestly obtained financial advantages by deception

The Crown case relied substantially on the evidence of two witnesses who claimed to have knowledge of the alleged staged accident and the involvement of two women.

The Reality of the Case

The matter arose from a motor vehicle collision on 18 July 2015.

It was accepted that:

• Asadi's vehicle was involved in the collision

• she was found in the driver's seat and appeared to be trapped and injured

• she was rescued from the vehicle and taken to hospital

• she subsequently made insurance claims relating to vehicle damage and personal injuries

• three medical practitioners provided opinions that her reported injuries and symptoms were consistent with a motor vehicle accident occurring in the manner she described

The prosecution did not have forensic evidence establishing that the collision had been staged.

Instead, its case relied heavily on two witnesses who gave evidence that the accident had been deliberately arranged and that two women had been involved. Neither witness could identify the women.

The Court also noted significant issues concerning the reliability and circumstances of these witnesses. One had pleaded guilty to offences arising from the same events and received a sentencing benefit for cooperating with authorities. The other had provided an induced statement and was not prosecuted because of his cooperation.

​

Our Defence Strategy

In a criminal matter based heavily on witness evidence and competing accounts of events, the defence must carefully examine whether the prosecution has actually established guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Key areas included:

• the reliability and credibility of the prosecution witnesses

• whether the witnesses had personal interests or incentives to give evidence against the accused

• whether the prosecution could establish that the accident was deliberately staged

• whether the evidence positively established Asadi's involvement

• the significance of the medical evidence supporting her account of the accident

• whether reasonable doubt remained as to the prosecution's version of events

• whether the Magistrate correctly applied the prosecution's burden of proof

The defence argued that the prosecution's case could not be resolved simply by choosing between two competing versions of events. The prosecution was required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and exclude reasonable possibilities consistent with innocence.

The Court's Considerations

On appeal, the District Court identified a number of significant issues with the way the original case had been determined.

The Court considered:

• whether the Magistrate had given appropriate directions concerning the reliability of the prosecution witnesses

• whether the evidence of witnesses who had themselves been involved in criminal conduct required particular scrutiny

• whether the Magistrate had improperly treated the matter as a contest between competing versions of events

• whether the prosecution had discharged its burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt

• whether appropriate weight had been given to the medical evidence supporting Asadi's account

The Court found that the Magistrate had posed rhetorical questions about why the prosecution witnesses would admit their own involvement in a staged accident or plead guilty if their evidence was not truthful.

The appellate Court found this reasoning legally problematic because it could effectively place an expectation on the accused to explain why witnesses had given evidence against her, rather than requiring the prosecution to prove its case.

The Court also found that the Magistrate had failed to give appropriate weight to the medical evidence. The reports of three doctors provided evidence supporting Asadi's account, including clinical findings that were not based solely on what she had told them.

The Result

Asadi was originally convicted by the Downing Centre Local Court on:

• one count of participating in a criminal group

• four counts of dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage by deception

She was sentenced to full-time imprisonment, with the sentences stayed pending determination of her appeal.

On 27 June 2025, the District Court allowed her appeal.

The Court:

• allowed the appeal

• set aside the convictions

• set aside the sentences imposed by the Local Court

• entered verdicts of not guilty on all charges

The Court ultimately found that, despite suspicion that Asadi may have been involved in the alleged criminal activity, the evidence did not establish her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Why This Case Matters

This case highlights the importance of the prosecution's burden of proof in criminal proceedings and the careful assessment of witness evidence.

It reinforces that:

• suspicion, even strong suspicion, is not enough to establish criminal guilt

• the prosecution must prove every element of an offence beyond reasonable doubt

• courts must carefully scrutinise evidence given by witnesses who may have personal interests or incentives to assist the prosecution

• an accused person does not have to prove their innocence or explain why prosecution witnesses have given evidence against them

• medical evidence can be significant when assessing whether an accused person's account is reasonably possible

• a court must not simply choose the prosecution's version because it considers it more likely than the accused's version

• where reasonable doubt remains, the proper outcome is an acquittal

Our Expertise

At Abbas & Co Lawyers, we act in serious criminal matters including:

• fraud and deception offences

• criminal group charges

• complex criminal prosecutions

• contested hearings and trials

• criminal appeals against conviction and sentence

We know how to:

• critically examine prosecution evidence

• challenge the reliability and credibility of witnesses

• identify inconsistencies and weaknesses in witness accounts

• analyse whether the prosecution has discharged its burden of proof

• examine medical and expert evidence relevant to the defence

• identify errors in the reasoning of a lower court

• develop strategic appeals against criminal convictions

Speak to Us

If you or a loved one has been convicted of a criminal offence, an appeal may be available where there are significant errors in the way the case was determined or where the evidence does not support the conviction.

Criminal appeals can involve complex legal and evidentiary issues and should be assessed carefully by experienced criminal lawyers.

Contact Abbas & Co Lawyers to discuss your circumstances and understand your legal options.