Legal Research
Cases
Griffin v R

Griffin v R

Case [2018] NSWCCA 259 21 November 2018

Sentencing

Mental Condition

Adequate Legal Representation

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Griffin v R [2018] NSWCCA 259
Hearing dates: 3 September 2018
Decision date: 21 November 2018
Before: Beazley P at [1];
McCallum J at [2];
Davies J at [66]
Decision:
Leave to appeal granted; sentence imposed at first instance quashed and, in substitution therefor, applicant sentenced to an aggregate sentence of imprisonment for six years commencing on 27 June 2016 with a non-parole period of three years concluding on 26 June 2019 and a balance of term of three years concluding on 26 June 2022. Applicant first eligible for release to parole on 26 June 2019.

Catchwords: CRIME – sentencing – whether sentencing judge erred in his approach to the applicant’s mental condition – where judge received inadequate assistance from defence counsel on that issue – whether applicant precluded from reformulating his case on that issue in this court – where applicant had presented cogent evidence relevant to his moral culpability and his prospects of rehabilitation
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 21A(3)(j)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 111(2), 112(2), 114(1)(d), 115, 195(1A)(b)
Cases Cited: Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25
Zreika v R (2012) 223 A Crim R 460; [2012] NSWCCA 44
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Rodney Griffin (Applicant)
Regina
Representation:
Counsel:
S Fraser (Applicant)
F Veltro (Crown)
Solicitors:
Legal Aid Commission (Applicant)
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

File Number(s): 2016/195726
Publication restriction: None
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court

Jurisdiction:

Crime

Date of Decision:

25 May 2017

Before:

Frearson SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2016/195726

Judgment

BEAZLEY P: I have had the advantage of reading in draft the reasons of McCallum J. I agree with her Honour’s reasons and proposed orders.
McCALLUM J: Rodney Griffin seeks leave to appeal against the sentence imposed upon him in the District Court for three offences relating to two fires deliberately lit in commercial premises in Goulburn.
There is some confusion in the record of the proceedings as to the first charge, which related to a fire lit in a Centrelink building. In respect of his involvement in that fire, the applicant was originally committed for sentence on a charge under s 111(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), which relates to entering a dwelling house. That was inappropriate as the premises in question were commercial premises.
Accordingly, an indictment was presented in the District Court. It contained a reference to s 115 of the Crimes Act, which may for present purposes be described (loosely) as an aggravated form of the offences under s 114. Section 114(1)(d) creates an offence of entering a building with intent to commit an indictable offence and carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 7 years. Section 115 provides for increased punishment for that offence in the case of an offender with a serious…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Griffin v R

Details

AGLC: Griffin v R [2018] NSWCCA 259
Case: [2018] NSWCCA 259
Decision Date: 21 November 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Griffin v R, the applicant sought to challenge his conviction and sentence on the basis that the sentencing judge erred in his approach to the applicant's mental condition. The applicant contended that the judge had not adequately considered his mental health, which was inadequately represented by defence counsel. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the applicant was precluded from reformulating his case on this issue in light of the evidence presented.

The legal issues before the court involved the application of principles of natural justice and the adequacy of legal representation in criminal proceedings. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the applicant could rely on evidence that was not presented to the sentencing judge due to inadequate assistance from defence counsel. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the applicant was precluded from arguing that the sentencing judge's approach to his mental condition was flawed based on evidence presented in this court.

The court found that the applicant's case was not precluded from reformulating his case on the issue of his mental condition. It held that the applicant had presented cogent evidence relevant to his moral culpability and his prospects of rehabilitation, which the sentencing judge had not considered. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that all relevant evidence is considered in sentencing, particularly when it pertains to an accused's mental health. It concluded that the sentencing judge's failure to consider the applicant's mental condition amounted to a significant error that warranted a reduction in sentence. The court ordered a reduction in the applicant's sentence, reflecting the importance of proper consideration of all mitigating factors in sentencing.

Orders