R v Lang

Case [2022] QCA 29

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Lang [2022] QCA 29

PARTIES:

R
v
LANG, Thomas Chris
(appellant)

FILE NO:

CA No 288 of 2020
SC No 273 of 2017

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Conviction: 30 November 2020 (Lyons SJA)

DELIVERED ON:

8 March 2022

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

23 July 2021

JUDGES:

McMurdo and Mullins JJA and Brown J

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was found guilty of murder – where the victim was stabbed – where there were no witnesses – where the only two possibilities as to who caused the victim’s death were either the appellant stabbed the victim or the victim stabbed herself – where the central issue at trial was whether the prosecution could exclude beyond reasonable doubt the possibility that the victim committed suicide – where the prosecution’s case relied on a lie told by the appellant in consciousness of guilt – whether the verdict was unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the whole of the evidence

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES AMOUNTING TO MISCARRIAGE – IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE – where the appellant was found guilty of murder – where the victim was stabbed – where there were no witnesses – where the only two possibilities as to who caused the victim’s death were either the appellant stabbed the victim or the victim stabbed herself – where the central issue at trial was whether the prosecution could exclude beyond reasonable doubt the possibility that the victim committed suicide – where the forensic pathologist who examined the body where it was found and conducted the post mortem gave evidence that it was his opinion that it was more likely the victim’s death was caused by a second person – where the appellant’s pre-trial application to have the forensic pathologist’s opinion that the victim’s death was more likely to have been caused by a second person excluded was refused – where the appellant conceded that the expert could speak of the factors that favour a view of self-infliction and those that favour a view of homicide – whether the forensic pathologist’s training and experience in conducting post mortems and familiarity with the literature on stabbing deaths justified his giving the opinion on the likelihood of the cause of the victim’s death – whether there was a miscarriage of justice by the forensic pathologist giving evidence that it was in his opinion more likely that the victim’s wound had been caused by another person than the wound being self-inflicted

Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193; [1993] HCA 63, cited
R v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308; [2016] HCA 35, cited
R v Boscaino[2020] QCA 275, cited
R v Lang

Continue reading R v Lang

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Lang [2022] QCA 29
Case
[2022] QCA 29
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Lang involves the appellant appealing against his conviction for murder. The victim was found stabbed, with no witnesses to the event. The only two possibilities as to who caused the victim's death were either the appellant or the victim herself. The central issue at trial was whether the prosecution could exclude beyond reasonable doubt the possibility that the victim committed suicide. The appeal grounds were: (1) the verdict was unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the whole of the evidence; and (2) there was a miscarriage of justice by the forensic pathologist being permitted to give his opinion that it was more likely that the victim’s wound had been caused by another person than the wound being self-inflicted.

The court had to determine whether the verdict was unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the whole of the evidence and whether the forensic pathologist’s opinion was properly admitted. The court considered the evidence presented, including the stored SMS and email messages, the relationship history between the parties, and the forensic pathologist's testimony. The court examined whether the prosecution's case, which relied on a lie told by the appellant, was sufficient to exclude beyond reasonable doubt the possibility of suicide. Additionally, the court assessed the qualifications and experience of the forensic pathologist in forming an opinion on the likelihood of the cause of the victim's death.

The court concluded that the verdict was not unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the whole of the evidence. It found that the forensic pathologist’s opinion was properly admitted as it was based on his training, experience, and familiarity with the literature on stabbing deaths. The court held that the prosecution had proven the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

ORDERS:
The appeal is dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

The grounds of appeal are:(1)the verdict was unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the whole of the evidence; and(2)there was a miscarriage of justice by the forensic pathologist Dr Ong being permitted to give his opinion that it was more likely that Mrs Boyce’s wound had been caused by another person than the wound being self-inflicted.Summary of the relevant evidence Exhibit 64 in the trial was a table of selected stored SMS and email messages to and from Mrs Boyce by identified parties between 7 July 2013 and 22 October 2015 and telephone calls made and received by Mrs Boyce on 21 and 22 October 2015 from the mobile phones used by her, Dr Graham Boyce and their children that was the subject of admissions by the parties. Mrs Boyce and Dr Boyce were in a relationship from 1974 and married in 1976. Dr Boyce’s evidence included the following. In 1979 Mrs Boyce commenced a relationship with the appellant in the United States. Mrs Boyce returned to Australia in 1980 and resumed living with Dr Boyce. Zachary was born in 1981 and Angelique was born in 1985. From about 2002, Dr Boyce worked in Cairns as a general medical practitioner. The family had been living at Hawthorne and Mrs Boyce bought an apartment at Kangaroo Point in her name, but subject to a mortgage for which Dr Boyce took responsibility. Dr Boyce would return to Brisbane regularly and stay with Mrs Boyce for various periods of time. Mrs Boyce and the children would travel to Cairns and stay with Dr Boyce in the school and university holidays. Dr Boyce paid the living expenses for Mrs Boyce. From about 2013 into 2014 for about 18 months Mrs Boyce lived in Cairns with Dr Boyce, as Zachary who is also a doctor was working at the Cairns Hospital. Dr Boyce began treatment for medical issues, undergoing surgery in November 2014, and from the latter part of 2014 through to the early part of 2015 was living with Mrs Boyce either at the Gold Coast or in Brisbane. Mrs Boyce was having major problems with depression at that time contributed to by Dr Boyce’s illness and returned to Cairns with him. Their daughter married in May 2015. The Kangaroo Point apartment was put on the market to sell in about June 2015 with the intention of buying a smaller apartment for Dr Boyce and Mrs Boyce. Mrs Boyce’s depression started when her mother died 25 years ago. When she was depressed, she would not want to go out, she would not take care of her appearance and would not want to see people. She was medicated from about 1995. Mrs Boyce had been very depressed in 2015 up until late July when she accompanied Dr Boyce to a dinner in Cairns for which she had gone out to the hairdressers and a nail salon and found some new clothes. Mrs Boyce returned to Brisbane at the end of August 2015 when she said she was feeling better. Dr Boyce was unaware that Mrs Boyce intended travelling to New Zealand in September 2015. He became aware only when he was unable to contact her, and asked Zachary to check on her. Zachary reported that Mrs Boyce was on her way to New Zealand to see the appellant and referred to a post on her Facebook page. Dr Boyce did not know that Mrs Boyce was continuing to have contact with the appellant, was upset about that, and posted a vile message on her Facebook page. Their regular daily contact ceased. It resumed about a week after she returned from New Zealand, when they had discussions about the sale of the Kangaroo Point apartment.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.