Lang v The Queen - [2023] HCATrans 60

[2023] HCATrans 060

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Brisbane No B57 of 2022

B e t w e e n -
THOMAS CHRIS LANG
Appellant
and
THE QUEEN
Respondent

KIEFEL CJ
GAGELER J
GORDON J
EDELMAN J
JAGOT J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON FRIDAY, 12 MAY 2023, AT 9.44 AM

MS R.M. O’GORMAN, KC: May it please the Court, I appear with my learned friend MR D.M. CARUANA for the appellant. (instructed by Fisher Dore Lawyers)

MR G.J. CUMMINGS: May it please the Court, I appear with my learned friend MR N.W. CRANE for the respondent. (instructed by Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (QLD))

KIEFEL CJ: Yes, Ms O’Gorman.

MS O’GORMAN: Your Honours, at the heart of this appeal lies the proposition that the circumstances of this case – the forensic and medical circumstances of Mrs Boyce’s death – were consistent with suicide and not with murder. The companion proposition is that the matters relied upon by the Crown, most notably and specifically the evidence related to whether or not Mrs Boyce was suffering any depressed mood at a time proximate to her death, firstly; secondly, evidence related to a possible motive; and thirdly, the alleged lie, were not capable when weighted with the circumstances of her death of supporting a verdict of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

This, of course, is a wholly circumstantial case. Two basic but nonetheless fundamental to our argument propositions loom large in this appeal. The first is that in a circumstantial case, guilt should not only be a rational inference but should be the only rational inference that can be drawn from the circumstances. The second is that on an appeal on the ground the verdict was unreasonable, the task for the appellate court is to weigh all the circumstances to decide whether it was open to the jury to draw the ultimate inference that guilt had been proven beyond reasonable doubt. The inference, of course, would not be open if the prosecution had failed to exclude an inference consistent with innocence that was reasonably open.

Now, we say that this case is interesting because here there was only one possible cause of Mrs Boyce’s death. There were only two people who could have caused that death, and in light of the manner in which the death was caused the death could only have been murder or suicide. Thus, the binary question, as it were, confronting the jury was whether on, all of the evidence it could exclude the possibility that death was a suicide. The question for the Court of Appeal after weighing all of the circumstances was whether it was open for the jury to have excluded that possibility that the death was a suicide.

We submit that in dismissing the appeal, the Court of Appeal erred because on all of the evidence there remained at least a reasonable possibility that Mrs Boyce’s death was…

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 Lang v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Lang v The Queen [2023] HCATrans 60
Case: [2023] HCATrans 60
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by Mr Lang against his conviction for a criminal offence. The central dispute concerned the admissibility of certain evidence obtained by law enforcement officers.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the evidence, which was obtained following an alleged unlawful search and seizure, should have been excluded from trial. This required the Court to consider the application of the exclusionary rule and the principles governing the admission of evidence obtained in contravention of legal rights.

The Court analysed the circumstances surrounding the acquisition of the evidence, paying close attention to the relevant provisions of the *Crimes Act 1914* (Cth) and the common law. It applied established principles regarding the discretion of a trial judge to exclude evidence where its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value, and where the evidence was obtained improperly or in contravention of law. The Court considered whether the impropriety in obtaining the evidence was so significant as to warrant its exclusion, even if it was relevant and probative.

The High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered a new trial.

Orders