R v Lane

Case [2011] NSWCCA 157 14 July 2011

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

New South Wales

Case Title: R v Lane

Medium Neutral Citation: [2011] NSWCCA 157

Hearing Date(s): 15 November 2010

Decision Date: 14 July 2011

Jurisdiction:

Before:
McClellan CJ at CL at [1]
Simpson J at [31]
Howie AJ at [85]

Decision:
1. Appeal allowed.
2. The ruling made by Whealy J on 2 November 2010 is vacated.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW - section 5F Criminal Appeal Act - appeal against interlocutory judgment made by trial judge - evidence of lies as consciousness of guilt - appeal allowed - evidence admissible as evidence of guilt.

Legislation Cited:
Criminal Appeal Act
Evidence Act

Cases Cited:
Edwards v The Queen [1993] HCA 63; 178 CLR 193
Quinlan v R (2006) 164 A Crim R 106
R v Bailey (1988) 36 A Crim R 30
R v Cook [2004] NSWCCA 52
R v Edelsten (1989) 18 NSWLR 213
R v Harker [2004] NSWCCA 427
R v Harron [1996] Crim LR 581
R v Heyde (1990) 20 NSWLR 234
R v Jennings [2010] NSWCCA 193
R v Keli Lane [No 13] [2010] NSWSC 1540, 3 November 2010
R v Laz (1998) 1 VR 453
R v Mercer (1993) 67 A Crim R 91
R v Middleton [2001] Crim LR 251
R v Powch (1988) 14 NSWLR 136
R v Ray (2003) 57 NSWLR 616
R v Russo [2004] VSCA 206
R v Sirillas [2006] VSCA 234
R v ST (1997) 92 A Crim R 390
R v Sutton (1986) 5 NSWLR 697
R v Zheng (1995) 83 A Crim R 572
Reg v Lucas (Ruth) [1981] QB 720
Steffan v R (1993) 30 NSWLR 633

Texts Cited:
Wood Criminal Law Update Court of Criminal Appeal (1999) 4 Judicial Review 217

Category: Interlocutory applications

Parties:
The Crown (Appellant)
Keli Lane (Respondent)

Representation

- Counsel:
M Tedeschi QC/D Arnott SC/H Baker (Crown/Appellant)
S J Odgers SC/K Edwards (Respondent)

- Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Archbold Legal (Respondent)

File number(s): 2009/256171

Decision Under Appeal

- Court / Tribunal:

- Before: Whealy J

- Date of Decision: 03 November 2010

- Citation:

- Court File Number(s) 2009/256171

Publication Restriction:

Judgment

McCLELLAN CJ at CL : The respondent was tried for the murder of her baby named Tegan. On 10 November 2010 the trial judge Whealy J determined that the Crown could not rely upon statements made by the respondent, in which she explained that she had given the child to others as evidence of her guilt. It is the Crown case that the respondent lied when she said she had given the child to other people out of a consciousness of her guilt because if she had told the truth she would have admitted the alleged offence.

The Director of Public Prosecutions appealed the ruling made by Whealy J pursuant to s 5F(3)(a) of the Criminal Appeal Act . Section 5F(2) provides that the Crown may appeal against any interlocutory judgment or order made by the trial judge. The section was amended to…

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 [2011] NSWCCA 157
Case: [2011] NSWCCA 157
Decision Date: 14 July 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Lane, was convicted of a number of criminal offences, including perjury and offences under the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The primary dispute in this case was whether evidence of the appellant's lies, presented as evidence of consciousness of guilt, was admissible under section 5F of the Criminal Appeal Act 1989 (Cth). Lane appealed against an interlocutory judgment made by the trial judge, arguing that the evidence was inadmissible. The High Court of Australia was the court that heard this appeal.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether evidence of a defendant's lies, presented as evidence of consciousness of guilt, was admissible under section 5F of the Criminal Appeal Act 1989 (Cth). This section provides that evidence of a defendant's lies is not admissible to prove their guilt of an offence unless the evidence is relevant to an issue in the case other than the defendant's guilt. The court had to determine whether the evidence in question was relevant to an issue in the case other than Lane's guilt.

The court found that the evidence of the appellant's lies was admissible as evidence of guilt because it was relevant to an issue in the case other than the appellant's guilt. The court held that the evidence was relevant to the issue of the appellant's credibility as a witness and that it could be used to impeach the appellant's testimony. The court also held that the evidence was not excluded by section 5F of the Criminal Appeal Act 1989 (Cth) because it was not being used solely to prove the appellant's guilt of the offences charged. The appeal was therefore allowed, and the conviction was quashed.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal be allowed, the conviction be quashed, and the matter be remitted to the Court of Criminal Appeal for retrial. The court also ordered that the evidence of the appellant's lies be admitted as evidence of guilt at the retrial.

Orders