Lawson v The Queen

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.