Lai v The Queen - [2003] NTCCA 12

Lai v The Queen [2003] NTCCA 12
PARTIES:QUO CHENG LAI
v

THE QUEEN

TITLE OF COURT:  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION
FILE NO:CA 4 of 2001 (9909126)
DELIVERED:  14 November 2003
HEARING DATES:  6 November 2003
JUDGMENT OF:  ANGEL ACJ, RILEY J AND PRIESTLEY AJ
CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL – Conviction for murder – Whether trial judge erred in admitting into evidence a statement by the appellant to police – Whether statement inadmissible due to s142 Police Administration Act – Whether the appellant was a “suspect” at the time of making the statement – Appeal dismissed
Evidence Act, s 26L
Police Administration Act, ss 142, 143
R v O’Donohue (1987-1988) 34 A Crim R 397 at 401, followed
Rostron v The Queen (1991-1992) 1 NTLR 191 at 196, followed
Grimley v The Queen (1994-1995) 121 FLR 282 at 294, followed
Moussa v The Queen (2001) 125 A Crim R 505, followed
R v Maratabanga (1993) 3 NTLR 77, considered
R v Grimley (1994) 121 FLR 236, applied
R v Raso (1993) 115 FLR 319, referred to
R v Heaney (1992) 2 VR 531 at 547-548, referred to
Queensland Bacon Pty Ltd v Rees (1966) 115 CLR 266 at 303, referred to
R v Emily Jako (1999) NTSC 46, referred to
R v Mellors (2000) NTSC 41, referred to
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Appellant:P. Elliott
Respondent:  R. Wild QC with W.J. Karczewski QC
Solicitors:
Appellant:Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission
Respondent:  Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Judgment category classification:    A
Judgment ID Number:  ril0329
Number of pages:  13

ril0329
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
Lai v The Queen [2003] NTCCA 12
No. CA 4 of 2001 (9909126)

BETWEEN:
QUO CHENG LAI

Appellant
AND:
THE QUEEN

Respondent

CORAM: ANGEL ACJ, RILEY J AND PRIESTLEY AJ
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 14 November 2003)
THE COURT:

On 14 February 2001, following an 8-day trial, the appellant was convicted of having murdered his wife on 24 April 1999.

The prosecution case against the appellant included a statement made by the appellant to Senior Constable Bennett on the morning of 25 April 1999. In a pretrial hearing the appellant unsuccessfully sought to have the statement excluded from evidence. He now appeals against his conviction on the basis that the trial judge erred in allowing the admission of the statement into evidence as part of the prosecution case.
THE CROWN CASE
The appellant and the deceased were married in 1981. They moved to Darwin in 1982 and from 1983 they together conducted the business of the Ebony Coffee Lounge at a suburban shopping centre. The marriage broke down when the deceased entered into a relationship with Risal Ongkosaputra in 1998. At the time of her death the deceased was living apart from the appellant. The deceased was living at 35 Clarence Street, Woodleigh Gardens, and the appellant a short distance away at 17…

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 Lai v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Lai v The Queen [2003] NTCCA 12
Case: [2003] NTCCA 12
Decision Date: 14 November 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerned a conviction for murder. The appellant, Lai, sought to challenge the admission into evidence of a statement made to police. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal of New South Wales, comprising Angel ACJ, Riley J, and Priestley AJ.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the trial judge had erred in admitting the appellant's statement to police. This question turned on whether the statement was inadmissible by reason of section 142 of the *Police Administration Act 1978* (NSW) (now repealed). Specifically, the Court had to determine whether the appellant was a "suspect" at the time the statement was made, which would have triggered certain procedural requirements under that section.

The Court reasoned that the appellant was not a suspect at the time of making the statement. The evidence indicated that the police were investigating a death, and while the appellant was present and interviewed, there was no indication that they had formed a suspicion that the appellant had committed an offence. Therefore, section 142 of the *Police Administration Act* did not apply to render the statement inadmissible. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

Orders