Director of Public Prosecutions v Lo (Ruling No 1)

The Director of Public Prosecutions for the State of Victoria brought proceedings against Lo, who was charged with murder and perjury. The victim was shot by a co-offender, who has since pleaded guilty to the murder. The trial issue is Lo's complicity in the murder. Lo is also charged with perjury, relating to a false statement alleging rape by the deceased and his flatmate. The alleged rape and assault persuaded the co-offender to shoot the deceased. The court was required to decide several legal issues, including whether the perjury charge should be severed from the murder indictment, and the admissibility of various pieces of evidence, including a series of lies told by Lo after the shooting, conduct after the shooting such as changing his address with VicRoads, a portion of the questioning of Lo when he was a suspect for murder but not yet cautioned, a videotape of Lo apparently having consensual sexual intercourse with the deceased, and a sexual complaint alleging rape by the deceased's flatmate.

The court found that the perjury charge should be severed from the murder indictment to ensure a fair trial. Regarding the admissibility of evidence, the court held that the series of lies told by Lo after the shooting were admissible as post-offence incriminating conduct. Similarly, conduct after the shooting, such as changing his address with VicRoads, was also admissible. However, the portion of the questioning of Lo when he was a suspect for murder but not yet cautioned was inadmissible. The court also held that the videotape of Lo apparently having consensual sexual intercourse with the deceased was admissible, despite the deceased's sexual complaint alleging rape, as the court found the allegation to be false.

The court further found that the sexual complaint alleging rape by the deceased's flatmate was inadmissible as it was admitted to be false. The court held that the admissibility of evidence should be determined on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the relevance and probative value of the evidence, as well as the potential for unfair prejudice or confusion of the issues. In this case, the court found that the evidence was admissible as it was relevant to the issue of Lo's complicity in the murder and had probative value in establishing Lo's state of mind and actions after the shooting. The court also found that the potential for unfair prejudice or confusion of the issues was minimal, as the evidence was properly vetted and the jury was properly directed on the limited purpose for which the evidence could be considered.

The court ordered that the perjury charge be severed from the murder indictment and that the admissible evidence be allowed in the trial. The court also ordered that the inadmissible evidence be excluded from the trial. The court held that the admissibility of evidence should be determined on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the relevance and probative value of the evidence, as well as the potential for unfair prejudice or confusion of the issues. In this case, the court found that the evidence was admissible as it was relevant to the issue of Lo's complicity in the murder and had probative value in establishing Lo's state of mind and actions after the shooting.