R v Ahola (No 7) - [2013] NSWSC 704

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Ahola (No 7) [2013] NSWSC 704
Hearing dates: 27 May 2013
Decision date: 27 May 2013
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Button J
Decision:
The Crown Prosecutor is permitted to address the jury to the effect that a lie of the accused demonstrates consciousness of guilt.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - application to address on lies as consciousness of guilt - lie identified with precision - possibility that jury be satisfied of the tests in Edwards v The Queen - Crown permitted to rely on lie as consciousness of guilt
Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995
Cases Cited: Edwards v The Queen [1993] HCA 63; (1993) 178 CLR 193
R v Lane [2011] NSWCCA 157
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Regina
Jouni Risto Ahola
Representation: Counsel:
P Cattini (Regina)
G Scragg (defendant)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Regina)
Legal Aid NSW (defendant)

File Number(s): 2011/333607

EX TEMPORE Judgment

The Crown Prosecutor has indicated that in his final address to the jury he proposes to rely on one alleged lie of the accused as demonstrating consciousness of guilt on his part. At my invitation, and in accordance with the authorities, he has identified it with precision.

Review of Evidence

At the scene on the evening of 18 October 2011, the accused informed a number of police officers that he had attempted to contact Senior Sergeant Wanklin in Queensland by telephone. He referred to having rung but not getting through.

References in the trial transcript are as follows. In the evidence of Senior Constable McLean at T522.37 the following appears. Recounting what the accused had said in answer to a question from Senior Constable Schmidt at Yugura Street, Senior Constable McLean gave evidence that the accused said at the scene on the evening of 18 October 2011:

"Yeah I was talking to her about dinner then I went out and sat out the back and had a smoke. I walked back inside the kitchen and saw blood on the floor. I then started yelling out for her and found her in the bathroom floor. I moved the stick away and checked her pulse and heartbeat. There was nothing I could do. I rang Ron, he's a cop in Queensland. After that I went out the back and sat down and had a drink and a smoke."

In the evidence of Senior Constable Schmidt at T655 the following appears, at T654.50 and following:

"'Yeah, I was talking to her about dinner and then I went and sat out the back and had a drink and a smoke. I walked back in the kitchen and saw blood near the front door. I started yelling out for her and found her on the bathroom floor covered in blood. I moved the stick away and checked her pulse and heartbeat, there was nothing I could do. I rang Ron, he's a cop from Queensland. After that I went out the back and I sat down and I…

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 R v Ahola (No 7)

Details

AGLC: R v Ahola (No 7) [2013] NSWSC 704
Case: [2013] NSWSC 704
Decision Date: 27 May 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case before the court, the appellant, Ahola, stood charged with multiple counts of criminal offences. The case reached the court as the appellant sought to challenge the admissibility of evidence pertaining to lies told by him, which the Crown sought to introduce as evidence of consciousness of guilt. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia, the ultimate judicial authority in the country.

The central legal issue that the court was tasked with resolving revolved around the admissibility of evidence of a lie told by the accused. The court was required to determine whether the Crown could rely on the lie as evidence of the appellant's consciousness of guilt, despite the appellant's argument that such evidence was inadmissible. This issue required the court to consider the relevant legal tests and principles that govern the admissibility of such evidence.

In examining the matter, the court referred to the principles established in the case of Edwards v The Queen, which sets out the criteria for determining the admissibility of evidence of lies as consciousness of guilt. The court determined that the evidence of the lie told by the appellant was precise and specific, and that there was a real possibility that a jury could be satisfied that the tests in Edwards were met. The court found that the Crown was permitted to rely on the lie as evidence of the appellant's consciousness of guilt, and that the evidence was admissible. The court's decision was based on a careful analysis of the facts of the case and the relevant legal principles.

As a result of the court's decision, the appeal was dismissed, and the evidence of the lie was deemed admissible. The court's ruling provides guidance to lower courts on the admissibility of evidence of lies as consciousness of guilt, and reinforces the importance of the principles established in Edwards v The Queen. The decision also highlights the need for careful consideration of the specific facts of each case when determining the admissibility of such evidence.

Orders