Lawson v The Queen - [2004] NTCCA 7

[Back to Main List]

Lawson v The Queen [2004] NTCCA 7

PARTIES: LAWSON

THE QUEEN

TITLE OF COURT: COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

JURISDICTION: CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION

FILE NO: CA8/02 (20101140)

DELIVERED: 15 September 2004

HEARING DATES: 25 August 2004

JUDGMENT OF: MARTIN (BR) CJ, RILEY J & PRIESTLEY AJ

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL
Criminal law – appeal against conviction – lies by accused – directions as to use of lies – miscarriage of justice – fresh evidence not available at trial – whether jury, acting reasonably, would have acquitted the appellant if fresh evidence had been before it at trial – appeal allowed.

Criminal Code Act (NT), s 411(2)

Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193; Zoneff v The Queen (2000) 200 CLR 234; Dhanhoa v The Queen (2003) 199 ALR 547; R v Callander (2004) 144 NTR 1, applied.

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
Appellant: C McDonald QC
Respondent: M Carey

Solicitors:
Appellant: NTLAC
Respondent: DPP

Judgment category classification: A
Judgment ID Number: Mar0409
Number of pages: 25

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN

Lawson v The Queen [2004] NTCCA 7
No. CA8/02 (20101140)

BETWEEN:

LAWSON
Appellant

AND:

THE QUEEN
Respondent

CORAM: MARTIN (BR) CJ, RILEY J & PRIESTLEY AJ

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Delivered 15 September 2004)

Martin (BR) CJ:
Introduction
[1] This is an appeal against convictions for sexual intercourse without consent and deprivation of liberty. The appellant also seeks leave to call fresh evidence with a view to establishing that the verdicts of the jury were unsafe and unsatisfactory.
[2] The appellant was charged with three offences arising out of events that occurred on 17 June 2000 at Katherine. Count 1 charged that the appellant had sexual intercourse with the female complainant without her consent contrary to s 192(3) of the Criminal Code. Count 2 charged that the appellant deprived the complainant of her personal liberty contrary to s 196(1) of the Criminal Code. The appellant was convicted by a jury of both those counts.
[3] The third count charged that the appellant, with intent to cause fear, made a threat to kill the female complainant contrary to s 166(1) of the Criminal Code. The jury acquitted the appellant of the third count.
[4] Leaving aside the application to call fresh evidence, the sole ground of appeal is as follows:
“The Learned Trial Judge erred in law in his directions to the jury in failing to direct the jury adequately in relation to the alleged lies told by the Applicant in his record of interview thereby giving rise to a substantial miscarriage of justice.”
[5] The particulars of the ground of appeal are as follows:
“The Learned Trial Judge’s directions to the jury made it clear to the jury that it could draw an inference of guilt by reason of the nature of the allegedly false answers given by him in his record of interview and in his statement.…

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 Lawson v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Lawson v The Queen [2004] NTCCA 7
Case: [2004] NTCCA 7
Decision Date: 15 September 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Criminal Appeal of the Northern Territory heard an appeal by Lawson against his convictions for sexual intercourse without consent and deprivation of liberty. The appeal also sought leave to adduce fresh evidence, with the aim of demonstrating that the jury's verdicts were unsafe and unsatisfactory. The appellant had been acquitted of a third charge of making a threat to kill.

The central legal issue on appeal, apart from the fresh evidence, concerned the adequacy of the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding alleged lies told by the appellant in his record of interview and a prior statement. Specifically, the appellant argued that the judge failed to adequately direct the jury on how they could use these alleged lies, thereby potentially leading to a substantial miscarriage of justice. This failure, it was contended, meant the jury was not properly guided on the principles established in High Court decisions such as *Edwards v The Queen* and *Zoneff v The Queen*, which govern the use of lies in criminal proceedings.

The Court considered the Crown's approach to the alleged lies, which was to rely on them for credit only and not as evidence of consciousness of guilt. The Crown prosecutor argued that the appellant's differing accounts of his movements and his omission of certain details indicated a lack of credibility. The trial judge directed the jury that if they found parts of the appellant's statements to be untrue, they should set those parts aside and consider the remaining evidence to determine if the Crown had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt. The judge cautioned against jumping to the conclusion of guilt simply because an explanation was disbelieved.

The Court allowed the appeal, finding that the jury, acting reasonably, would have acquitted the appellant if the fresh evidence had been before it at trial. The specific nature of the fresh evidence and the detailed reasoning for allowing the appeal are not elaborated upon in the provided text, but the outcome was that the convictions were overturned.

Orders