Legal Research
Cases
Lane v The Queen

Lane v The Queen

Case [1996] FCA 385 16 May 1996

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CATCHWORDS

CRIMINAL LAW - sexual offence - necessity to warn jury - whether evidence uncorroborated - observations in respect of operation of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) ss 164 and 165

CRIMINAL LAW - whether verdict unsafe or unsatisfactory - relevance of delay in complaint - whether a doubt must or ought to have been experienced by the jury

Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) ss 4(1), 164, 165
Evidence (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 1995 s 4(1)

M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487 Cons
R v Pearson (NSW Court of Appeal unreported 5 March 1996) Refd
Longman v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 79 Refd

PAUL GREGORY LANE v THE QUEEN
No ACT G 60 of 1995

Coram:    Gallop, Davies, Kiefel JJ.
Date:      16 May 1996
Place:      Canberra

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION No. ACT G 60 of 1995

On appeal from a Judge of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory
BETWEEN:PAUL GREGORY LANE
Appellant

AND: THE QUEEN
Respondent

CORAM:Gallop, Davies, Kiefel JJ.

PLACE: Canberra

DATE:16 May 1996

MINUTES OF ORDERS

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The appeal be dismissed.

NOTE:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION No. ACT G 60 of 1995

On appeal from a Judge of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory
BETWEEN:PAUL GREGORY LANE
Appellant

AND: THE QUEEN
Respondent

CORAM:Gallop, Davies, Kiefel JJ.

PLACE: Canberra

DATE:16 May 1996

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(THE COURT)

The appellant was convicted of the charge that, between the 1st day of July 1985 and the 27th day of November 1985 at Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory, he did indecently assault a male. The complainant was at the time of the alleged offence 11 years of age. A feature of the evidence at trial was an admission made to the police by the appellant in October 1993, following a complaint made that he had undertaken oral sex upon the person of the complainant in 1985, but which admission, so far as it related to that time, was shortly afterwards resiled from. A fact also disputed was as to where the incident had occurred.

This appeal raises the question whether the evidence was such that the verdict cannot stand (M v The Queen(1994) 181 CLR 487) and whether warnings or directions
ought to have been given either because the complaint's evidence was uncorroborated or because it could not be relied upon. The latter point is also relevant to the first question, whether the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory. It is convenient to deal firstly with the obligations, if any, imposed by statute and the general law as to the giving of warnings and directions in a case of this kind and having regard to the evidence as given.

On 18 April 1995 the provisions of the Evidence Act 1995 (Commonwealth)…

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 The Queen

Details

AGLC: Lane v The Queen [1996] FCA 385
Case: [1996] FCA 385
Decision Date: 16 MAY 1996

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Paul Gregory Lane, was convicted of indecently assaulting a male, who was 11 years old at the time of the alleged offence in 1985. The evidence included an admission made by the appellant to the police in October 1993, which he later retracted. The court was asked to consider whether the evidence was such that the verdict could not stand and whether the jury should have been warned that the evidence was uncorroborated or unreliable. This appeal raises questions about the obligations of the court under the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) and the general law regarding warnings and directions in cases of this kind.

The Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) came into effect on 18 April 1995, including sections 164 and 165, which relate to corroboration requirements and warnings concerning unreliable evidence. Section 164 states that it is not necessary for evidence to be corroborated, except for perjury or similar offences. Section 165 requires the judge to warn the jury if a party requests it and the evidence may be unreliable, such as evidence affected by age, ill health, or injury. The appellant argued that the complainant's evidence should have been treated as unreliable due to the delay in reporting the offence and the complainant's age at the time of the alleged offence. However, the court found that there was no obligation to give a warning as to the lack of corroboration under section 164(3) and no request was made under section 165(2). The court also noted that the complainant's evidence was not uncorroborated since the appellant admitted to the police that the alleged act occurred.

The court examined whether the trial judge should have given a direction or warning to the jury regarding the unsatisfactory aspects of the evidence. The judge had already provided specific comments and warnings about the difficulties of an 11-year-old recalling events with clarity and the accused's ability to recall events while affected by alcohol. The court found that no further strong direction or warning was necessary and that the jury did not need to experience a doubt about the evidence. The court concluded that the appeal should be dismissed, as the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.

Orders