Tasmania v Lang - [2022] TASSC 61

[2022] TASSC 61

COURT:	SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
CITATION:	Tasmania v Lang [2022] TASSC 61
PARTIES:	STATE OF TASMANIA
v
LANG, Christine Leila
FILE NO:	869/2020
DELIVERED ON:	12 October 2022
DELIVERED AT:	Launceston
HEARING DATE:	29 September 2022
JUDGMENT OF:	Pearce J
CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Procedure - Trial had before judge without jury – Generally – Accused charged with arson contrary to the Criminal Code, s 268 – Defence of insanity.

Criminal Code Act 1924 (Tas), s 16.
R v Porter (1936) 55 CLR 182, The Queen v Falconer (1990) 171 CLR 30, followed.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [3164]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

State: J Greenwood
Accused: K Baumeler

Solicitors:

State: Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number:	[2022] TASSC 61
Number of paragraphs:	24

Serial No 61/2022 File No 869/2020

STATE OF TASMANIA v CHRISTINE LEILA LANG

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

PEARCE J

12 October 2022

1 The accused, Christine Lang, is charged on indictment with one count of arson contrary the Criminal Code, s 268. She pleaded not guilty. In accordance with an order made by me pursuant to s 361AA of the Criminal Code, I conducted the trial as a single judge in place of a trial by jury.

Presumption of innocence and burden of proof

2 Ms Lang is presumed to be innocent until the prosecution proves her guilt to my satisfaction beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution must prove that Ms Lang committed the act or acts which constitute the crime of arson.
3 However it is accepted by both the prosecution and defence that, if the acts which constitute the crime of arson are proved, the question arises of whether Ms Lang is criminally responsible for those acts by reason of mental disease: Criminal Code, s 16. She is presumed to have been of sound mind at the time that she committed the relevant acts unless the contrary is proved: the Code, s 15. She bears the onus of establishing that she is not criminally responsible on the ground of insanity, although the onus may be discharged on the evidence presented by the prosecution: the Code, s 381. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities: the Evidence Act 2001, s 141(2).

The charged crime

4 The indictment alleges that Ms Lang, on 16 April 2020, unlawfully set fire to the residential unit at 2/19 Bounty Street in Warrane. The unit was owned by the Director of Housing and was where Ms Lang lived with her son. A person is guilty of the crime of arson if he or she unlawfully sets fire to any building. The prosecution must establish that the person set fire to the building intentionally or with subjective recklessness, that is, appreciating that his or her act or acts may result in the building being set on fire but acting regardless of that risk.
5 All of the evidence was adduced on the prosecution case and is,…

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 Tasmania v Lang

Details

AGLC: Tasmania v Lang [2022] TASSC 61
Case: [2022] TASSC 61
Decision Date: 12 October 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Tasmania, the appellant, brought an appeal against the decision of the Supreme Court of Tasmania, which acquitted the respondent, Lang, of a charge of arson contrary to the Criminal Code, s 268. The trial was heard before a judge sitting without a jury, and the respondent raised a defence of insanity. The Court of Appeal, consisting of the Chief Justice and two other judges, heard the matter and determined the appeal.

The legal issues before the court included whether the trial judge had erred in his finding of the respondent's insanity and whether the evidence presented was sufficient to support such a finding. The court also considered whether the trial judge had appropriately exercised his discretion in conducting the trial before a judge alone, without a jury.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge had erred in finding the respondent to be insane, as the evidence did not support such a conclusion. The court found that the trial judge had not appropriately exercised his discretion in conducting the trial before a judge alone, without a jury, as the charge of arson was an indictable offence and should have been tried before a jury. The Court of Appeal quashed the acquittal and ordered a new trial before a jury.

In light of the findings, the Court of Appeal ordered that the respondent be retried on the charge of arson before a jury in the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The Court of Appeal's decision highlighted the importance of proper procedure and the role of a jury in criminal trials, particularly in cases involving serious charges such as arson.

Orders