R v Christopher Griffin

The appeal concerned the Crown's challenge to an interlocutory order granting a permanent stay of proceedings against the respondent, Christopher Griffin. The dispute arose from the Crown's contention that the trial judge erred in law by permanently staying the prosecution due to the loss of certain evidence. The appeal was heard by Higgins CJ, Gray and Madgwick JJ.

The central legal issue before the Full Court was whether the trial judge had correctly determined that the prejudice to the accused, arising from the loss of forensically untested evidence, could not be abrogated by an appropriate warning to the jury. This involved considering the threshold for granting a permanent stay and the adequacy of judicial directions in mitigating potential prejudice.

The Court reasoned that a permanent stay of proceedings is an exceptional remedy, reserved for circumstances where a fair trial is impossible. While acknowledging the prejudice caused by the loss of evidence, the Court found that the trial judge had erred in concluding that no warning to the jury could adequately address this prejudice. The Court held that the trial judge should have considered whether a strong warning, directing the jury to disregard the lost evidence and not to speculate on its potential contents or implications, would have been sufficient to ensure a fair trial. The Court determined that the trial judge had not given sufficient consideration to this alternative course of action.

Consequently, the Full Court granted leave to appeal, upheld the Crown's appeal, and set aside the interlocutory order that had granted a permanent stay of proceedings.