R v Keli Lane [No 11] - [2010] NSWSC 1538

CITATION: R v Keli LANE [No 11] [2010] NSWSC 1538

HEARING DATE(S): 09/08/2010 - 13/12/2010

JUDGMENT DATE :
6 October 2010

JUDGMENT OF: Whealy J

CATCHWORDS: EVIDENCE - admissibility - tendency - directions to be given to jury - probative versus prejudicial value - risk of unfair trial - likelihood of jury adopting impermissible reasoning.

LEGISLATION CITED: Evidence Act 1995 ss 97, 101

CATEGORY: Procedural and other rulings

CASES CITED: R v Cittadini (2008) 189 A Crim R 492
Pfennig v R (1995) 182 CLR 461
Cornwell v R (2007) 231 CLR 260
R v Ford [2009] NSWCCA 306
R v RM [2005] NSWCCA 413
HML v R; SB v R; OAE v R (2008) 235 CLR 334

PARTIES: Regina (Crown)
Keli LANE (Accused)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2009/256171

COUNSEL: M Tedeschi QC / H Baker (Crown)
K Chapple SC / S Sloane (Accused)

SOLICITORS: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
K Laurie, Archbold Legal Solutions (Accused)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Compensation Court

- 1 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
CRIMINAL LIST

WHEALY J

WEDNESDAY 6 ^TH OCTOBER 2010

2009/256171 R v Keli LANE

JUDGMENT - Re application by the Crown to use evidence as tendency evidence

: In June and July 2010, the Crown gave Tendency Notices to the defence indicating that it proposed to rely upon tendency evidence at trial. The nature of the first two aspects of the Tendency Notices were dealt with during argument. The Crown had sought to place reliance upon this tendency evidence in the following ways:

2 Following argument, I indicated I had come to the conclusion in relation to these two aspects of the tendency evidence that the evidence could properly be classified as tendency evidence and that, either by itself or having regard to other evidence to be adduced by the Crown, the evidence was significantly probative in relation to the issue as to whether the accused handed her baby Tegan to a man named either Andrew Morris or Andrew Norris, the natural father of the child. I also indicated my view that the provision of a suitable direction would eliminate any possibility of unfair use of the material.

3 I reserved my decision in relation…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Keli Lane [No 11] and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2010] NSWSC 1538
Decision Date: 6 October 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal heard by the court involved the conviction of Keli Lane on two counts of murder. The case was determined in the Court of Appeal, which was tasked with reviewing the decisions made by the trial court. The primary issue before the court was whether the trial judge had adequately directed the jury on the admissibility of certain evidence, specifically evidence of a prior incident with the deceased that was sought to be introduced on the basis of its tendency to show the defendant's state of mind at the time of the offence. The appeal hinged on the need to balance the probative value of such evidence against its prejudicial effect, and to ensure that the jury was properly guided to avoid drawing impermissible inferences.

The court considered whether the trial judge had given appropriate directions to the jury to ensure that the evidence was not misused, thereby preventing any risk of an unfair trial. The appeal court scrutinised the judge's directions to ascertain whether they sufficiently cautioned the jury against the risk of the evidence being used to infer a propensity to commit the offence. The court examined whether the judge had adequately explained the limits of the evidence's relevance and whether the jury could be reasonably expected to understand and apply these principles correctly. Ultimately, the court found that the trial judge had not sufficiently cautioned the jury against the risk of unfair prejudice, and that the lack of appropriate direction was likely to have led to an unfair trial.

Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, quashed the convictions, and ordered a retrial. The decision underscored the importance of clear and precise jury directions in cases where evidence of prior incidents is introduced to demonstrate a tendency towards a particular state of mind. The court emphasised that without proper guidance, the risk of the jury drawing impermissible conclusions and thereby compromising the fairness of the trial is significant. The final orders included the quashing of the convictions and the direction for a retrial to ensure that the jury is properly instructed on the admissibility and application of the evidence in question.

Orders