Meko v The Queen [2004] WASCA 159

Meko v The Queen [2004] WASCA 159 - WASCA 2004 case summary — Zoe

[64]

" Ladies and gentlemen, the last direction on law I have to give to you is this: it relates to lies and in this case you heard Mr Mactaggart refer to the fact that the accused, he said, had lied in his account of the incidents that happened and his evidence in this court, and particularly Mr Mactaggart says he lied in relation to the injury to the deceased woman near her vagina, the groin I think Mr Mactaggart referred to it as.

The accused said he didn't stab her, the knife was always in his bag, and Mr Mactaggart says they are deliberate lies. Normally a lie is admissible in evidence if you find there is a lie which affects the credit of a witness. If you are satisfied the accused has lied you may take that into account in determining whether you think he is generally a truthful person, but here the prosecution says you can go further than that. This lie, or series of lies, about this indicate he is really guilty; he was trying to cover up his guilt. That's what they say.

You must consider this submission very carefully before you accept it. There are a number of matters which you must be satisfied about before you can use lies as evidence of a person's guilt of the offence charged, or any alternative offence. First, you must be satisfied he did lie. That means the statement was false and he knew it was false. It's not enough that he may have been confused or forgotten something. Secondly, the lie must be connected with the charge itself.

The Crown would say obviously they are both met here. Some people, for example, may be a bit loose in their talk about things but that wouldn't mean they are guilty of a criminal offence. That's not this situation, as the crown puts it. You must be satisfied that in telling a lie the accused had some knowledge that it was important in the offence. He knew that if he told the truth it would implicate him in the offence. In other words, the crown says, it is important all right because he knew that if he agreed that he'd taken the knife in there and used it, it would most certainly implicate him in a way which the crown says constitutes wilful murder.

In other words, you have to be satisfied the accused was lying because of a realisation of guilt, and here the crown points to what it submits are lies in the accused's account of the main acts of the offence itself. So they say, if he's lying about that it suggests that he was lying because he was trying to cover up some material matter connecting him with the offence. But you must bear in mind a person may be telling a lie for a reason apart from a realisation of guilt. A person may panic, may get carried away, may tell a story for some other reason. If you accept that a lie is explained by a reason such as this then it's not evidence that he was in any way guilty.

So for a lie to amount to an admission of guilt the only reasonable inference from the circumstances in which it was told must be that the accused lied because he knew that if he told the truth he would be found guilty. Such an inference could be the only reasonable one to be drawn only where the lie related to something which directly linked the accused with the crime charged, and it would be a rare case in which it would be permissible to infer beyond reasonable doubt that the accused, by telling a lie, was confessing his guilt."

[66]

"Mr Mactaggart refers to the post-mortem report. He points out that he found the injury not apparent to those apparent at the scene, the injury to the groin, inflicted with a different weapon to the tomahawk. The accused says he never inflicted that injury, but Mr Mactaggart refers to Dr Cooke's evidence. There was a stab wound on the left of the vagina. It went through the clothing and penetrated to 6 centimetres with a small amount of bleeding. It looked like a knife stab. Mr Mactaggart says the importance is, it was inflicted with a knife and at a time when she was either dead or close to death.

How then did she sustain this injury? He says at 7.30 she was fit and well. At 9.20 she was found by Constable Beros in the position shown in that photo, A1. Only one person attacked her, Mr Mactaggart says - the accused. He inflicted injuries to her head and, Mr Mactaggart says, to the groin with the knife Exhibit C - a knife he admits he had, found in the grass down the street. Mr Mactaggart says it is preposterous to suggest someone else might have done it. You might think the only reasonable conclusion open is that he did it with that knife. He points out that there was a weak analysis of blood on it.

So, says, Mr Mactaggart, he inflicted the injury with the knife at some time when she was dead or nearly dead. So, he says, E4; he opened the knife, pulled her skirt up, plunged the knife in 6 centimetres deliberately and precisely. For whatever reason he did it, he says, it speaks volumes. Mr Mactaggart says this was not a man in fear of anyone; rather a man with weapons inflicting violence on a woman in her own unit. Not content with bludgeoning her on the head 10 times, in the last throes of life he inflicted this injury. Why, asks Mr Mactaggart. No motive need be proven. Who knows what motivates humans to do these things.

But, he says, in relation to the accused's evidence, who figures most? Mr Meka [sic] refers to the lady as 'this woman' in the video. 'I, I, I,' says Mr Mactaggart is what he says. 'I had no option.' But, Mr Mactaggart says, nothing compelled him to do what he did. Perhaps, he says, the lady had become an impediment in his mind to his existence. But, Mr Mactaggart submits, the injury to the groin demonstrates spite, revenge and vindictiveness. He points out the clothing has been arranged, the breast exposed, the dress up - very personal attack, he suggests."

[78]

41 It is convenient to pass directly to the third ground of appeal in which the appellant submits that when the learned trial Judge was instructing the jury as to lies he failed to identify the evidence which would support the appellant's testimony that he did not use the knife, such as the fact that the width of the wound was greater than the width of the knife blade and the fact that no blood of the deceased was found on the knife. In my view, with respect, this ground of appeal overstates the position disclosed by the evidence at the end of the trial. While it is true that there was no evidence to establish that any blood on the knife matched the blood of the deceased there was considerable circumstantial evidence to suggest that this particular knife had been used to wound the victim. First, there was an unequivocal stab wound to the groin of the deceased and the forensic evidence was that this wound had not been caused by the axe or tomahawk but was consistent with the use of the knife which the police had found. There was no other weapon or instrument ever found which might have caused this wound. The knife, when subjected to chemical testing, did give a positive reaction to blood although there were no visual traces of blood found on it and it was not possible to identify that blood. The knife was found on the grass as a result of the police following a trail of blood spots in the street leading from the unit which could only have been caused by the appellant bleeding, presumably from the wound to his lip, as he left the unit, went down Kinsella Street, turned into Stoneham Road and eventually into Green Street. The knife was found in the vicinity of a number of coins and the appellant admitted that he had fumbled in the bag to get coins out of a box in case he found a telephone and that the knife was probably dropped at the same time. These are all indications that this knife was used to inflict the groin wound upon the deceased rather than the contrary. In such circumstances I do not accept that the inability of the police investigation to identify the blood detected on the knife could be elevated to the status of a "fact that no blood of the deceased was found on the knife" or that any direction or observation to that effect would be required of the learned trial Judge or could be justified in the circumstances.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Catchwords

Source

Catchwords

Judgment (109 paragraphs)

Meko v The Queen [2004] WASCA 159 (5 August 2004)

Parties

Cases Cited (5)