Lang v The Queen

The appellant, Lang, was convicted of murder. He appealed his conviction to the High Court of Australia, arguing that the verdict was unreasonable or could not be supported having regard to the whole of the evidence. The central dispute concerned the cause of the deceased's injuries, which were either self-inflicted or caused by the appellant, with the only hypothesis consistent with innocence being suicide.

The High Court was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether the jury's verdict of guilty was unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence. Secondly, the court considered the admissibility of expert opinion evidence provided by a forensic pathologist, Dr Ong, who stated that the deceased's injuries were more likely inflicted by another person than self-inflicted. The court had to assess whether Dr Ong's opinion was based on expert knowledge and whether admitting this evidence constituted a wrong decision on a question of law.

The court found that while the appellant did not dispute the relevance of Dr Ong's evidence in assessing the reasonableness of the verdict, there was no demonstrated basis in expertise for his opinion on the critical issue of how the injuries were inflicted. Consequently, the court held that Dr Ong's evidence on this point should have been excluded, and the second ground of appeal should have been upheld, leading to a retrial. However, the majority of the High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal.

The appeal was dismissed.