Lin v Tasmania

[2015] TASCCA 13

[2015] TASCCA 13

COURT:        SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA (COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL)

CITATION:                 Lin v Tasmania [2015] TASCCA 13

PARTIES:  LIN, Tu Ai
  v

STATE OF TASMANIA

FILE NO:  875/2011
DELIVERED ON:  16 June 2015
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE/S:  18, 19, 20 August 2014
JUDGMENT OF:  Porter, Wood and Pearce JJ

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Miscarriage of justice – Particular circumstances not amounting to miscarriage – Alleged misdirection – Full Azzopardi direction not given – Direction sufficient as it covered the same ground and fulfilled the purpose.

R v Wilson (2005) 26 NSWLR 346, applied.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [3470]

Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Miscarriage of justice – Particular circumstances amounting to miscarriage – Misdirection – Circumstantial case – Direction that a reasonable explanation consistent with innocence is not a possibility – Reference to distinction between reasonable explanation and "mere possibility" or "bare possibility" of innocence – Directions erroneous and a miscarriage of justice.

R v Lancefield [1999] VSCA 176; R v Compton and Barratt [2013] SASCFC 134, considered.
Barr v The Queen (2004) 14 NTLR 164, applied.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [3466]

Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Verdict unreasonable or insupportable having regard to evidence – Appeal ground dismissed – Circumstantial case based on business records – Where jury misdirected on the standard of proof – In the absence of misdirection finding of guilt open to the jury on the whole of the evidence – Order of acquittal not appropriate – Retrial ordered.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [3476]

Evidence – Documentary evidence – Statutory provisions relating to business records – Criminal cases – Prosecution case based on business records – Makers of representations not apparent from records – Request by accused for the prosecution to call makers of the representations – Prosecution position that makers of some to be called but otherwise the representations were those of the accused – Finding of trial judge that prosecution had shown reasonable cause for failing to call the makers – Finding of trial judge reasonably open.

Evidence Act 2001 (Tas), ss 167, 169.

Aust Dig Evidence [121]

Evidence – Admissibility and relevancy – Opinion evidence – Expert opinion – Other cases – Handwriting expert – Expert asked to assume specimen writings likely to be that of the accused – No direct evidence of authorship of specimen writings – Jury asked to infer that the accused was the author – Inference reasonably open – Expert evidence that the same person was the author of specimen writings and questioned writings relevant.

Aust Dig Evidence [64]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  P E Barker SC and K Baumeler
             Respondent:  A R Jacobs and H Mannering
Solicitors:
             Appellant:  Butler McIntyre & Butler
             Respondent:  Acting Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number:  [2015] TASCCA 13
Number of paragraphs:  179

Serial No 13/2015

File No 875/2011

TU AI LIN v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT…