R v Christopher Griffin

[2007] ACTCA 6

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT

R v CHRISTOPHER GRIFFIN
[2007] ACTCA 6 (5 April 2007)

CRIMINAL APPEAL – whether missing evidence warranted a permanent stay in proceedings – whether appropriate warning to jury could abrogate prejudice to the accused arising from lost, forensically untested evidence

Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT), s 21

Barton v R (1980) 147 CLR 75

R v Slattery [2002] NSWCCA 367 (4 September 2002)

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

No. ACTCA 31 - 2006
No. SCC 38 of 2005

Judges:        Higgins CJ, Gray and Madgwick JJ
Court of Appeal of the Australian Capital Territory
Date:           5 April 2007

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE       )          No. ACTCA 31 - 2006
  )          No. SCC 38 of 2005
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY    )
  )

COURT OF APPEAL  )

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:THE QUEEN

Appellant

AND:CHRISTOPHER GRIFFIN

Respondent

ORDER

Judges:  Higgins CJ, Gray and Madgwick JJ
Date:  5 April 2007
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. Leave to appeal be granted;

1. The appeal be upheld; and

1. The interlocutory order granting a permanent stay be set aside.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE       )          No. ACTCA 31 - 2006
  )          No. SCC 38 of 2005
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY    )
  )

COURT OF APPEAL  )

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:THE QUEEN

Appellant

AND:CHRISTOPHER GRIFFIN

Respondent

Judges:  Higgins CJ, Gray and Madgwick JJ
Date:  5 April 2007
Place:  Canberra

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

1. This is an appeal, alternatively an application for leave to appeal, by the Crown against an order made on 28 July 2006 by Crispin J permanently staying proceedings on an indictment dated 4 May 2005 which had charged that the respondent:

… on the 18^th day of July 2004 … attempted to murder David Maly AND … intentionally inflicted grievous bodily harm on David Maly AND … recklessly inflicted grievous bodily harm on David Maly.

1. Those charges were alternatives arising out of an incident on 18 July 2004.  The factual circumstances and the alternative contentions concerning them were set forth by his Honour.  They are not alleged to have been erroneously set out.

2.The incident that gave rise to these charges occurred on the evening of Sunday, 18 July 2004.  A number of telephone calls had earlier been exchanged between the applicant [Mr Griffin, the accused] and his former girlfriend, Ms Lutz, who claimed that he owed her money and wanted him to return some items apparently given to him during the course of their relationship.  Arrangements were apparently made for them to be picked up at his home.  She and the complainant [Mr Maly], who was her new partner, left their flat at about 9.30 pm to travel to the applicant’s home in the complainant’s Jaguar.  During the course of the journey they saw the applicant in his car and,…