Lane v R

Case [2013] NSWCCA 317 13 December 2013

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Lane v R [2013] NSWCCA 317
Hearing dates: 23 July 2013
Decision date: 13 December 2013
Before: Bathurst CJ; Simpson J; Adamson J
Decision:
Appeal against conviction dismissed

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - appeal - murder - whether error in failure to leave alternative count of manslaughter to jury - whether trial miscarried by reason of prejudice occasioned by Crown prosecutor - whether reversal of onus of proof - whether separate trial application should have been made in respect of perjury/false swearing charges - whether trial miscarried by failure of trial judge to discharge jury after Crown prosecutor made prejudicial remarks in opening address - whether error in leave granted pursuant to s 38 Evidence Act 1995 - whether verdict unreasonable and not supported by evidence - failure of trial counsel to request direction regarding delay in prosecution - all grounds rejected - appeal dismissed
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Criminal Appeal Rules
Criminal Code (Qld)
Evidence Act 1995
Jury Act 1977
Cases Cited: Alford v Magee [1952] HCA 3; 85 CLR 437
Barca v The Queen [1975] HCA 42; 133 CLR 82
Beavan v The Queen [1954] HCA 41; 92 CLR 660
Burns v The Queen [2012] HCA 35; 246 CLR 334
Carney v R; Cambey v R [2011] NSWCCA 223; 217 A Crim R 201
Caswell v Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd [1940] AC 152
Demirok v The Queen [1977] HCA 21; 137 CLR 20
Director of Public Prosecutions v Newbury [1976] UKHL 3; [1976] 2 WLR 918
Edwards v The Queen [1993] HCA 63; 178 CLR 193
Gammage v The Queen [1969] HCA 68; 122 CLR 444
Gilbert v The Queen [2000] HCA 15; 201 CLR 414
Gillard v The Queen [2003] HCA 64; 219 CLR 1
Huynh v The Queen [2013] HCA 6; 87 ALJR 434
Hyam v Director of Public Prosecutions [1974] UKHL 2; [1975] AC 55
Jones v Great Western Railway Co (1930) 144 LT 194
Justins v R [2010] NSWCCA 242; 79 NSWLR 544
Libke v The Queen [2007] HCA 30; 230 CLR 559
Longman v The Queen [1989] HCA 60; 168 CLR 79
M v The Queen [1994] HCA 63; 181 CLR 487
Markby v The Queen [1978] HCA 29; 140 CLR 108
MFA v The Queen [2002] HCA 53; 213 CLR 606
Mraz v The Queen [1955] HCA 59; 93 CLR 493
Nudd v The Queen [2006] HCA 9; 162 A Crim R 301
Nydam v R [1977] VR 430
Onassis and Calogeropoulos v Vergottis [1968] 2 Lloyd's Rep 403 at 431
Pemble v The Queen [1971] HCA 20; 124 CLR 107
R v Barlow [1997] HCA 19; 188 CLR 1
R v Birks (1990) 19 NSWLR 677
R v Collie [1991] SASC 2996; (1992) 56 SASR 302
R v…

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 Lane v R

Details

AGLC: Lane v R [2013] NSWCCA 317
Case: [2013] NSWCCA 317
Decision Date: 13 December 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Lane v R involved an appeal against a conviction for murder, with the appellant challenging various aspects of the trial process and the sufficiency of the evidence. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant was convicted of murder following a trial in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. He was also convicted of perjury and false swearing, charges that arose during the trial.

The central legal issues in the appeal were whether there was an error in not leaving the alternative count of manslaughter to the jury, whether the trial was prejudiced by the Crown prosecutor's conduct, whether there was a reversal of the onus of proof, whether a separate trial application should have been made in respect of the perjury/false swearing charges, and whether the trial miscarried due to the judge's failure to discharge the jury after the prosecutor made prejudicial remarks. Additionally, the appellant argued that the trial judge erred in granting leave under the Evidence Act 1995, that the verdict was unreasonable and not supported by the evidence, and that trial counsel failed to request a direction regarding the delay in prosecution.

The High Court rejected all grounds of appeal. It found no error in the trial judge's decision not to leave the alternative count of manslaughter to the jury. The court also concluded that the prosecutor's conduct did not prejudice the trial, nor was there a reversal of the onus of proof. It was held that a separate trial application should have been made in respect of the perjury/false swearing charges, but this did not result in a miscarriage of justice. The court further found no error in the leave granted under the Evidence Act 1995, that the verdict was not unreasonable and was supported by the evidence, and that the failure of trial counsel to request a direction regarding the delay in prosecution did not constitute error. The appeal was therefore dismissed, upholding the conviction for murder.

Orders