R v Lane [2011] NSWCCA 157

R v Lane [2011] NSWCCA 157

The appeal was allowed because there was a body of evidence from which the jury could conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent's accounts about giving Tegan to a Perth couple, Andrew Morris, or Andrew Norris were lies, and that conclusion was not dependent on first finding that the respondent murdered Tegan. The circumstantial case to prove falsity overlapped with but was not co-extensive with the circumstantial case of murder, so use of the alleged lies as evidence of consciousness of guilt did not involve impermissible circular reasoning. Subject to proper directions, the evidence satisfied the Edwards requirements and could be relied upon by the Crown as evidence of guilt.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeal Under S 5 F of the Criminal Appeal Act Against an Interlocutory Ruling in a Criminal Trial Concerning Use of Evidence of Alleged Lies as Consciousness of Guilt / Court of Criminal Appeal Appeal From Ruling of Whealy J During Trial
Outcome
Appeal allowed; ruling of Whealy J vacated; evidence ruled admissible as evidence of guilt of the respondent on the charge of murder.
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Interlocutory Judgment or Order' 'admissibility and Permitted Use of Evidence' 'lies as Consciousness of Guilt' 'circumstantial Evidence' 'circular Reasoning' 'section 5 F Criminal Appeal Act']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'criminal Procedure'] ['appeal Against Interlocutory Judgment or Order' 'admissibility and Permitted Use of Evidence' 'lies as Consciousness of Guilt' 'circumstantial Evidence' 'circular Reasoning' 'section 5 F Criminal Appeal Act']

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

Crown Appeal Under S 5 F of the Criminal Appeal Act Against an Interlocutory Ruling in a Criminal Trial Concerning Use of Evidence of Alleged Lies as Consciousness of Guilt / Court of Criminal Appeal Appeal From Ruling of Whealy J During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court of Criminal Appeal had jurisdiction under s 5F of the Criminal Appeal Act to hear the Crown appeal against the ruling limiting the use of evidence.' "Whether evidence of the respondent's accounts that she gave Tegan to a Perth couple, to Andrew Morris, or to Andrew Norris could be relied upon as evidence indicating consciousness of guilt of murder." 'Whether use of the alleged lies as evidence of guilt involved impermissible circular or bootstrap reasoning.' 'How repeated or perpetuated alleged lies should be treated by the jury.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because there was a body of evidence from which the jury could conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent's accounts about giving Tegan to a Perth couple, Andrew Morris, or Andrew Norris were lies, and that conclusion was not dependent on first finding that the respondent murdered Tegan. The circumstantial case to prove falsity overlapped with but was not co-extensive with the circumstantial case of murder, so use of the alleged lies as evidence of consciousness of guilt did not involve impermissible circular reasoning. Subject to proper directions, the evidence satisfied the Edwards requirements and could be relied upon by the Crown as evidence of guilt.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; ruling of Whealy J vacated; evidence ruled admissible as evidence of guilt of the respondent on the charge of murder.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed.' 'The ruling made by Whealy J on 2 November 2010 is vacated.' 'Pursuant to s 5F(5)(b) of the Criminal Appeal Act, the evidence in question was admissible as evidence of the guilt of the respondent on the charge of murder.']