R v Keli LANE [No 5] [2010] NSWSC 1532

R v Keli LANE [No 5] [2010] NSWSC 1532

The amended direction sought by the Crown should not be given at that stage because the existing direction was only a preparatory caution designed to prevent unfair misuse of lies against the accused, the relevant evidence concerning alleged lies after Tegan's birth had not yet been led, and piecemeal directions on consciousness of guilt before evidence and argument would be apt to confuse or distract the jury. The original direction was not apt to mislead the jury because its statement that a lie could not in itself prove guilt contained a sufficient qualification for present purposes.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 August 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial; Procedural Ruling on Admissibility/evidence and Jury Directions Concerning Lies as Consciousness of Guilt / During Jury Trial, Before Relevant Evidence Concerning Alleged Lies After Tegan's Birth Had Been Led
Outcome
The Crown's request for an amended jury direction was declined at this stage.
Legal Topics
['jury Directions' 'lies as Evidence' 'consciousness of Guilt' 'preparatory Directions' 'murder Charge']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'criminal Procedure'] ['jury Directions' 'lies as Evidence' 'consciousness of Guilt' 'preparatory Directions' 'murder Charge']

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

Criminal Trial; Procedural Ruling on Admissibility/evidence and Jury Directions Concerning Lies as Consciousness of Guilt / During Jury Trial, Before Relevant Evidence Concerning Alleged Lies After Tegan's Birth Had Been Led

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the jury should be given an amended preparatory direction that, in certain circumstances, a lie can amount to evidence in the Crown case of the accused's guilt." 'Whether giving such an amended direction before the relevant evidence had been led would be premature, confusing or distracting.' 'Whether the original preparatory direction was apt to mislead the jury into thinking lies could never amount to evidence of guilt.']

Ratio Decidendi

The amended direction sought by the Crown should not be given at that stage because the existing direction was only a preparatory caution designed to prevent unfair misuse of lies against the accused, the relevant evidence concerning alleged lies after Tegan's birth had not yet been led, and piecemeal directions on consciousness of guilt before evidence and argument would be apt to confuse or distract the jury. The original direction was not apt to mislead the jury because its statement that a lie could not in itself prove guilt contained a sufficient qualification for present purposes.

Court Disposition

The Crown's request for an amended jury direction was declined at this stage.

Orders

  • ['It is not necessary at this stage to give the amended direction sought by the Crown.' 'The document containing the proposed amended direction was to be marked for identification as MFI 10.']