JUDGE:	Redlich J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	24 January 2005 to 19 September 2005
DATE OF RULING:	24 May 2005
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Lam & Ors
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2005] VSC 292

RULING NO. 18

Lies by accused evidencing a consciousness of guilt – Lie must be demonstrably false –– must be compelling and prominent hypothesis - whether inference of consciousness of guilt open where competing hypotheses.

Circularity of reasoning – “Boot straps” argument – Whether lie or facts establishing lie an indispensable link in a chain of reasoning – Centrality of facts to accused’s defence –Whether implied admission in relation to offence charged

Standard of proof as to implied admissions – Joint trial – Lies by a number of accused.

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr M. Dean S.C. with Mr P. Southey	Mr S. Carisbrooke, Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For Cuong Quoc Lam	Mr S. Grant	Michael Gleeson & Associates
For Hung Tu Van	Mr A. Jackson	Haines & Polities
For Linh Van Nguyen	Mr D. Brustman	Valos Black & Associates
For Thanh Nha Nguyen	Mr F. Gucciardo	Theo Magazis & Associates
For Long Thanh Tran	Mr G. Mullaly	Victoria Legal Aid
For Hong Bui	Mr J. Saunders	Valos Black & Associates
For Hoang Tran	Mr M. Rochford	Brendan Wilkinson

HIS HONOUR:

Lies said to evidence a consciousness of guilt

The prosecution seeks to rely upon a number of alleged implied admissions of guilt made by six of the accused to police in their video interviews or statements. In a document dated 3 May 2005 the prosecution set out 47 alleged lies, 29 of which were said to support an inference that these alleged lies were told out of a consciousness of guilt of the crime with which the accused have been charged. With two exceptions, defence counsel disputed that any of the answers were clear lies or that an inference of a consciousness of guilt could be inferred from such statements. During the course of subsequent submissions the prosecution refined its position a number of times conceding that some of the lies should be left to the jury only as going to the credit of the particular accused and abandoning a number of lies as capable of supporting an inference of a consciousness of guilt. The prosecution also reformulated the wording of a number of the lies upon which it continued to rely.

Subsequent to the oral argument, by a further document filed and dated 17 May 2005, the prosecution further refined its position as to the lies which it submitted were capable of evidencing a consciousness of guilt. The prosecution now relied upon the following 13 lies as supporting an inference of a consciousness of guilt.

Cuong Lam
1.(3).[1] The lie as to how he came to be armed in Daly Street; (video…

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 Lam (No 18)

Details

AGLC: R v Lam (No 18) [2005] VSC 292
Case: [2005] VSC 292
Decision Date: 24 May 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellants, Lam and his co-accused, were convicted of various drug-related offences. The case reached the court on appeal, focusing on the admissibility of lies told by the appellants during police interviews and whether these lies evidenced a consciousness of guilt. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether such lies could be used to infer guilt in the context of a joint trial, where multiple accused persons had made potentially incriminating statements.

The primary legal issue was the extent to which lies told by an accused, which evidence a consciousness of guilt, can be used to establish guilt. The court needed to decide if such lies could be admitted as evidence when they were demonstrably false, prominent, and formed a compelling hypothesis. Additionally, the court examined whether the lies could be considered an indispensable link in a chain of reasoning, especially when other hypotheses could explain the same facts. Another issue was whether an implied admission regarding the offence charged could be inferred from the lies, and if so, what standard of proof should apply.

The court held that lies told by an accused, which evidence a consciousness of guilt, could be admitted as evidence if they were demonstrably false, prominent, and formed a compelling hypothesis. However, the court emphasised that this should not lead to a circular or "bootstrap" argument, where the lie itself is both the evidence and the proof of guilt. The court noted that the centrality of the facts to the accused's defence was critical in determining admissibility. In the context of a joint trial, the court held that lies by multiple accused persons could be considered, but the standard of proof required for an implied admission must be carefully assessed to avoid prejudice. The appeal was dismissed, maintaining the convictions of the appellants.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal, thereby upholding the convictions of Lam and his co-accused on the drug-related offences. The court's reasoning reinforced the principles regarding the admissibility of lies as evidence of a consciousness of guilt, while cautioning against the use of such lies in a manner that could lead to circular reasoning or prejudice in a joint trial.

Orders