R v Gene David SCORRINGE [2009] NSWDC 241

New South Wales District Court

CITATION: R v Gene David SCORRINGE [2009] NSWDC 241

JUDGMENT DATE: 21 April 2009

JURISDICTION: District Court of New South Wales

JUDGMENT OF: Cogswell SC DCJ

DECISION: There is an appropriate basis for a consciousness of guilt submission by the Crown Prosecutor

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - jury trial - application by Crown Prosecutor to include consciousness of guilt argument in closing address - whether answers given in cross-examination amounted to lies

Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193 CASES CITED: R v Lucas [1981] QB 720 R v Spathis [2001] NSWCCA 476

PARTIES: Regina Gene David Scorringe

FILE NUMBER(S): 2008/2276

COUNSEL: Ms C Dobraszczyk Mr L Brasch

SOLICITORS: Director of Public Prosecutions Legal Aid Commission of NSW

JUDGMENT

1. The Crown Prosecutor has put certain propositions to the accused when he gave evidence. She put to him that in response to three questions in his record of interview with the police he lied. He has admitted that he lied in each instance but explains why he chose to tell lies to the police. The Crown Prosecutor went on to put to the accused that the reason for his three lies was a consciousness of guilt. Understandably she now wants to include that argument in her address which she is about to commence.

2. Mr Brasch who appears for the accused argues that certainly in relation to one of the responses by the accused, and perhaps in others, his response did not amount to a lie. Without going into detail, the nature of the response given by the accused in the record of interview was not inconsistent with the Crown case. Mr Brasch argues that a lie must be independently demonstrated not to be the case. He says, further, that it therefore needs to be inconsistent with the Crown case. It follows, he said, that the answers provided by his client in cross-examination cannot amount to lies.