R v Keli LANE [No 5] - [2010] NSWSC 1532

CITATION: R v Keli LANE [No 5] [2010] NSWSC 1532

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

JUDGMENT DATE :
23 August 2010

JUDGMENT OF: Whealy J

CATEGORY: Procedural and other rulings

CASES CITED: R v Edwards (1993) 178 CLR 193
R v Spathis [2001] NSWCCA 476
R v Ray (2003) 57 NSWLR 616
R v Adam (1999) 106 A Crim R 510
R v Cook [2004] NSWCCA 52
R v Lam (2008) 185 A Crim R 453
Healey v R [2008] NSWCCA 229

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: Supreme Court

- 1 -

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

WHEALY J

MONDAY 23 AUGUST 2010

2009/256171 REGINA v Keli LANE

1 HIS HONOUR: I trust I do no injustice to the Crown submission by the following summary. The Crown, conscious of the fact that MFI 3 contained introductory directions to the jury, suggested nevertheless that the terms of the direction, particularly in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, which were directions in connection with the birth of Tegan, and the identity of her male parent, the jury may have got the impression that lies could never be used as evidence in a Crown case of an accused person's guilt. It was for that reason the Crown suggested an addendum.

2 The addendum is in the following terms. It appears after point 4: "In certain circumstances a lie can amount to evidence in the Crown case of the accused's guilt. Whether or not those circumstances may have arisen in this case is relevant to what the Crown says are lies are told after Tegan's birth about the handing over of Tegan".

3 CROWN PROSECUTOR: It should be "in relation to what the Crown says." It should be, "in relation to what the Crown says are lies told after Tegan's birth."

4 HIS HONOUR: There is an error in your draft. I will read it out again just as I think it should be. You correct me if I'm wrong.

5 CROWN PROSECUTOR: Yes, your Honour.

6 HIS HONOUR: "In certain circumstances a lie can amount to evidence in the Crown case of the accused's guilt. Whether or not those circumstances may have arisen in this case in relation to what the Crown says are lies told after Tegan's birth about the handing over of Tegan remains to be decided by me later in the trial."

7 CROWN PROSECUTOR: That's correct.

8 HIS HONOUR: Mr Chapple has submitted that it is premature to give this direction at the present time. Secondly, he argued that the absence of detail, an absence of reference to specific lies will tend to be confusing to the jury and-

9 CHAPPLE: If I may interrupt,…

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 5] 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 1532
Decision Date: 23 August 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Regina v Keli Lane, the parties involved were the Crown and the accused, Keli Lane. The dispute was centred around the admissibility of evidence regarding lies told by the accused after the birth of a child named Tegan. This case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Common Law Division, Criminal List. The legal issues at hand were whether it was appropriate to provide an addendum to the jury's directions regarding the use of lies as evidence of consciousness of guilt and whether the original direction given was sufficient to prevent any potential misunderstanding of the Crown's case.

The court's reasoning was based on several factors. Firstly, the initial direction provided to the jury was a preparatory one, given at an early stage of the trial, before any evidence had been presented. The purpose of this direction was to prevent the jury from misunderstanding the role of lies in a criminal trial. Secondly, the evidence relating to the lies in question had not yet emerged, and it was not appropriate to provide a more detailed direction at that stage. Finally, the principal authority in this area, R v Edwards, demonstrated the need for caution when providing a direction to the jury regarding the use of lies as evidence of consciousness of guilt. The court concluded that it was not necessary to provide an amended direction at that stage, as the original direction was sufficient and appropriate.

The outcome of the case was that the court decided not to provide the amended direction sought by the Crown, as it was not necessary at that stage of the trial. The court found that the original direction was sufficient to prevent any potential misunderstanding of the Crown's case and that it was not appropriate to provide a more detailed direction before the evidence had been presented. The final orders of the court were that the amended direction sought by the Crown would not be provided to the jury at that stage of the trial.

Orders