Griffiths v The Queen - [2014] NSWCCA 60

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Griffiths v R [2014] NSWCCA 60
Hearing dates: 2 April 2014
Decision date: 17 April 2014
Before: Simpson J at [1]; Davies J at [31]; Adamson J at [37]
Decision:
Leave to appeal granted, appeal dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - appeal - conviction - reckless wounding - s 35(4) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) - whether verdict unreasonable and cannot be supported by evidence - M v The Queen [1994] HCA 63 - MFA v The Queen [2002] HCA 53 - SKA v The Queen [2011] HCA 13 - question of fact - leave required under s 5(1)(b) Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) - leave granted due to uncertainty created by police officer's notes - amply open to jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of applicant's guilt - appeal dismissed
Legislation Cited: Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW), s 15A
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 35(4)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5(1)(b)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 38
Cases Cited: M v The Queen [1994] HCA 63; 181 CLR 487
MFA v the Queen [2002] HCA 53; 213 CLR 606
SKA v The Queen [2011] HCA 13; 243 CLR 400
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Brian Shawn Griffiths (Appellant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
J Trevallion (Applicant)
N Noman SC (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Archbold Legal (Applicant)
S Kavanagh - Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2011/276169
Publication restriction: Non-publication of any information or material that may lead to the identification of certain individuals (s 15A Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW))
Decision under appeal

Jurisdiction:

9101

Date of Decision:

2012-12-03 00:00:00

Before:

North DCJ

File Number(s):

2011/276169

Judgment

SIMPSON J: On 30 July 2012 the applicant was arraigned in the District Court in Parramatta on an indictment that contained a single count of reckless wounding (of MZ), brought under the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 35(4). After a trial that took place over a number of days, the jury returned a verdict of guilty. The applicant now appeals against the conviction. He did, but now does not, seek leave to appeal against the sentence subsequently imposed. The sole ground of appeal asserts that the verdict of guilty was unreasonable and could not be supported by the evidence. Because such a ground involves a question of fact alone (or a question of mixed law and fact) the appellant requires leave to appeal: see Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5(1)(b).

The task of this Court where such a ground is raised is well established and well known: M v The Queen [1994] HCA 63; 181 CLR 487; MFA v the Queen [2002] HCA 53; 213 CLR 606; SKA v The Queen [2011] HCA 13; 243 CLR 400.

The Court must make its own independent assessment of the sufficiency and quality of the evidence. The question, ultimately, is whether, notwithstanding that there is evidence upon which a jury might convict, nevertheless…

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 Griffiths v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Griffiths v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 60
Case: [2014] NSWCCA 60
Decision Date: 17 April 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Griffiths v The Queen involves an appeal against a conviction for the crime of reckless wounding under section 35(4) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The matter was heard in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal, where the applicant, Griffiths, contested the decision of the trial judge to uphold the jury's verdict of guilt. The primary issue before the court was whether the verdict was unreasonable and could not be supported by the evidence presented during the trial. This determination required the court to assess the sufficiency of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses in light of the legal principles established in previous High Court decisions such as M v The Queen, MFA v The Queen, and SKA v The Queen.

In examining the evidence, the court acknowledged the importance of the police officer's notes in assessing the reliability of the witness testimony. The appellant argued that these notes created uncertainty that undermined the reliability of the evidence. The court, however, found that the notes did not necessarily lead to an unreasonable verdict, and it was within the jury's purview to decide the credibility of the evidence and the guilt of the applicant. The court concluded that it was amply open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Griffiths was guilty of the offence. The Court of Criminal Appeal held that the jury's verdict was supported by the evidence and that the appeal did not meet the criteria for leave under section 5(1)(b) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW).

Consequently, the court granted leave to appeal due to the uncertainty created by the police officer's notes, but ultimately dismissed the appeal. The decision underscores the principle that in cases of criminal conviction, the jury's role in assessing the facts and evidence is paramount. The court held that there was no basis to interfere with the jury's verdict, which was consistent with the established legal framework. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction for reckless wounding was upheld.

Orders