Lang v The Queen [2023] HCA 29

Lang v The Queen [2023] HCA 29

The Court held the guilty verdict was not unreasonable: the prosecution excluded the possibility of suicide beyond reasonable doubt, considering the appellant's motive, lie regarding the timing of the phone disposal, and features of the death and forensic evidence, including the pathologist's opinion. The Court further held the forensic pathologist's opinion evidence regarding the likelihood the wounds were inflicted by another was admissible, as it was based on the expert's specialised knowledge, training, study, and experience, and properly explained the basis of the opinion; thus, there was no error of law in admitting the evidence and the appeal was dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: Thomas Chris Lang; Respondent: The Queen
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 October 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal to High Court of Australia From the Supreme Court of Queensland (court of Appeal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Unreasonable Verdict, Admissibility of Expert Opinion, Jury Directions, Murder, Appeals, Standard of Proof
Criminal Law Evidence Unreasonable Verdict Admissibility of Expert Opinion Jury Directions Murder Appeals Standard of Proof

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Chris Lang

Appellant

The Queen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal to High Court of Australia From the Supreme Court of Queensland (court of Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the verdict was unreasonable and could not be supported having regard to the whole of the evidence
  2. 2 Whether admission of forensic pathologist's opinion evidence was a wrong decision of law / miscarriage of justice

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held the guilty verdict was not unreasonable: the prosecution excluded the possibility of suicide beyond reasonable doubt, considering the appellant's motive, lie regarding the timing of the phone disposal, and features of the death and forensic evidence, including the pathologist's opinion. The Court further held the forensic pathologist's opinion evidence regarding the likelihood the wounds were inflicted by another was admissible, as it was based on the expert's specialised knowledge, training, study, and experience, and properly explained the basis of the opinion; thus, there was no error of law in admitting the evidence and the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed