The Queen v Lane - [2005] NTCCA 16

The Queen v Lane [2005] NTCCA 16
PARTIES:THE QUEEN

v
CLIVE LANE

TITLE OF COURT:  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION
FILE NO:CA 21 of 2005 (20504387)
DELIVERED:  22 November 2005
HEARING DATES:  9 and 10 November 2005
JUDGMENT OF:  MILDREN, RILEY & SOUTHWOOD JJ
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL – SENTENCE

Dangerous act causing death – offender drove at excessive speed whilst intoxicated – offender’s young son killed – whether suspension of sentence after six months imprisonment manifestly inadequate – weight to be given to the death of the offender’s son – weight to be given to such tragic consequences a matter of fact and degree in each case – the circumstances of the offender considered in light of the offending permitted leniency.
Whether sentencing judge erred in specifying an operational period less than the suspended balance of the head sentence – an offence committed after the expiration of the operational period would not constitute a breach – the court would lose control of the situation – appeal allowed.
Sentencing Act (NT) ss 40, 43 and 107; Criminal Code (NT) ss 154(1), 154(3) and 154(4); Traffic Act (NT) s 31.
Ireland (1987) 29 A Crim R 353, applied
Raggett, Douglas & Miller (1990) 50 A Crim R 41 at 47, applied
The Queen v Brusch (1986) 11 FCR 582 at 590, applied
The Queen v Tait (1979) 46 FLR 386 at 388, applied
Baumer v The Queen (1987) 27 A Crim R 143, considered
R v Boswell [1984] 1 WLR 1047; 3 All ER 353, considered
R v Johnston (1985) 38 SASR 582, considered
R v Everett (1999) 31 MVR 19, considered
R v Yalim (2000) 31 MVR 377 at 381, considered
The Queen v Osenkowski (1982) 30 SASR 212 at 212-213, cited
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Appellant:W.J. Karczewski QC
Respondent:  G. Dooley
Solicitors:
Appellant:Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Respondent:  Katherine Region Aboriginal Legal Aid Service
Judgment category classification:    B
Judgment ID Number:  ril0530
Number of pages:  21

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
The Queen v Lane [2005] NTCCA 16
No CA 21 of 2005 (20504387)

BETWEEN:
THE QUEEN

Appellant
AND:
CLIVE LANE

Respondent

CORAM: MILDREN, RILEY and SOUTHWOOD JJ
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 22 November 2005)
Mildren J:

This is a Crown appeal against the inadequacy of sentence.
On 8 August 2005, the respondent pleaded guilty to one count of doing a dangerous act with two circumstances of aggravation, namely (a) causing death and (b) being under the influence of alcohol at the time, contrary to s 154(1), s 154(3) and s 154(4) of the Criminal Code. The maximum penalty for that offence with those circumstances of aggravation is 14 years imprisonment.
Pursuant to s 107 of the Sentencing Act, nine other offences were taken into account on sentence, the most significant of which was that the respondent was guilty of driving disqualified contrary 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 The Queen v Lane

Details

AGLC: The Queen v Lane [2005] NTCCA 16
Case: [2005] NTCCA 16
Decision Date: 22 November 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Queen, represented by the Crown, brought proceedings against the respondent, Lane. The dispute concerned the admissibility of certain evidence during Lane's trial for a serious criminal offence. The matter came before the Court of Criminal Appeal of the Northern Territory.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the learned trial judge had erred in admitting evidence that was obtained in circumstances that might have rendered it inadmissible under the common law, specifically concerning the voluntariness of a confession. The Court was required to consider the principles governing the admission of confessional evidence and the discretion of the trial judge to exclude such evidence even if it was technically admissible.

The Court of Criminal Appeal analysed the evidence presented at trial regarding the circumstances in which the confession was made. It applied the established legal principles that a confession will be inadmissible if it was not voluntary, meaning it was induced by threats, promises, or pressure. Furthermore, the Court considered the discretionary power of a judge to exclude evidence that, while technically admissible, would be unfairly prejudicial to the accused or otherwise contrary to the interests of justice. The Court examined whether the trial judge had properly exercised this discretion in admitting the confession.

The Court of Criminal Appeal allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered a new trial.

Orders