R v Keli LANE [No 24] [2011] NSWSC 72

R v Keli LANE [No 24] [2011] NSWSC 72

Having regard especially to the Court of Criminal Appeal's decision vacating the earlier ruling and to Edwards v R, the judge accepted the Crown's argument that the jury need not be directed that the Crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt that each alleged lie was told from consciousness of guilt before the lie could be used as part of the circumstantial case.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 February 2011
Procedural Posture
Common Law Criminal / Procedural Ruling During Trial After Final Addresses and Before Summing Up to the Jury
Outcome
Crown argument accepted, with serious misgivings; the jury was not to be directed that the Crown had to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the reason for each lie was consciousness of guilt.
Legal Topics
['consciousness of Guilt Lies' 'jury Directions' 'standard of Proof' 'use of Evidence' 'limitation of Evidence Under S 136 Evidence Act 1995']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['consciousness of Guilt Lies' 'jury Directions' 'standard of Proof' 'use of Evidence' 'limitation of Evidence Under S 136 Evidence Act 1995']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Common Law Criminal / Procedural Ruling During Trial After Final Addresses and Before Summing Up to the Jury

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the jury should be instructed that the Crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the reason for each alleged lie was the accused's consciousness of guilt of murder." "Whether alleged lies, or repetitions of them, could be used as part of the Crown's circumstantial case without proof to a particular standard that they exhibited consciousness of guilt."]

Ratio Decidendi

Having regard especially to the Court of Criminal Appeal's decision vacating the earlier ruling and to Edwards v R, the judge accepted the Crown's argument that the jury need not be directed that the Crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt that each alleged lie was told from consciousness of guilt before the lie could be used as part of the circumstantial case.

Court Disposition

Crown argument accepted, with serious misgivings; the jury was not to be directed that the Crown had to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the reason for each lie was consciousness of guilt.

Orders

  • ['Lies may not be left as evidence of guilt.' 'Evidence is to be limited (s 136 Evidence Act 1995).']