R v Lane - [2014] NSWSC 1430

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Lane [2014] NSWSC 1430
Hearing dates: 7 - 10; 13 - 15 October 2014
Decision date: 15 October 2014
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Campbell J
Decision:
See [15]

Catchwords: CRIMINAL - procedure - evidence - unfavourable witness - where Crown obliged to call son of the accused - whether witness unfavourable - procedure to be adopted in eliciting witness' evidence
Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 38, 192A
Cases Cited: Doyle v R [2014] NSWCCA 4
Kanaan v The Queen [2006] NSWCCA 169
R v Kingswell (Unreported New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal, 2 September 1998)
R v Milat (Unreported, Supreme Court of New South Wale, Hunt CJ at CL, 23 April 1996);
Category: Interlocutory applications
Parties: The Queen (Crown)
Paul Ian Lane (accused)
Representation: Counsel: L Carr (Crown)
P Young SC (Accused)
Solicitors:

File Number(s): 12/289582

EX TEMPORE Judgment (REVISED)

Mr Lane is being tried for the murder of Mr Peter Morris which arises out of events occurring in Casino around midnight on 15th and 16th September 2012.

The learned Crown Prosecutor has applied for an advanced ruling or direction under the provisions of s 192A EvidenceAct1995 (NSW). The direction or ruling relates to an application under s 38 of the EvidenceAct. The relevant witness to whom the ruling relates is Mr Ryan Lane, the son of the accused. Ryan Lane had been with his father at The Commercial Hotel during the night of Saturday 15th September 2012. They met up around closing time and walked west along Barker Street, Casino together coming across Mr Morris and his friend Mr Schwager. Mr Ryan Lane was not involved in the altercation that then ensued amongst Mr Lane Senior, Mr Morris and Mr Schwager. However, I have received as evidence on the voir dire (exhibits VD B and C) two statements made by Ryan Lane to investigating police dated 18th September 2012 and 6th August 2013 respectively.

The Crown would not have wished to call Mr Lane as a witness, but accept an obligation to call him because his evidence is obviously relevant to the Crown case and the accused has requested that the Crown do so. The application made by the Crown Prosecutor pursuant to s 38 is made consistently, or in conformity, with the approach adopted by Hunt CJ at CL (as he then was) in R v Milat (Unreported, Supreme Court of New South Wale, Hunt CJ at CL, 23 April 1996). This obviously a very early decision in terms of the application of s 38 of the EvidenceAct, but the approach has been followed since in R v Kingswell (Unreported New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal, 2 September 1998), KanaanvR [2006] NSWCCA 109 and through that latter case in DoylevR [2014] NSWCCA 4.

The basis of the Crown's application is that Ryan Lane's evidence is unfavourable to the Crown. I bear…

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 Lane

Details

AGLC: R v Lane [2014] NSWSC 1430
Case: [2014] NSWSC 1430
Decision Date: 15 October 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v Lane was before the High Court, where the accused, Lane, was facing criminal charges. The central dispute revolved around the procedure to be followed when eliciting evidence from an unfavourable witness, specifically the son of the accused. The Crown argued that it was obligated to call the son as a witness, who was perceived as unfavourable, and sought guidance on the appropriate procedure to adopt when dealing with such a witness.

The court was tasked with determining whether the son was indeed an unfavourable witness and, if so, what procedures the Crown should follow in calling and eliciting evidence from him. This included examining whether the Crown was required to give notice of the intention to call the witness and the manner in which the evidence should be elicited to ensure fairness and compliance with legal principles.

In its decision, the court held that the son was indeed an unfavourable witness, given his potential bias or reluctance to testify against his father. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that the witness's evidence was obtained fairly and that the rights of the accused were protected. The court ruled that the Crown must give notice of its intention to call an unfavourable witness and must adopt a careful and cautious approach when eliciting evidence from such a witness to avoid any prejudice or unfairness. The court also noted that the trial judge has a duty to ensure that the evidence is obtained in a manner that upholds the principles of natural justice.

The final orders of the court were not explicitly stated in the text, but the decision provided clear guidance on the procedures to be followed when dealing with unfavourable witnesses in criminal proceedings.

Orders