R v Gregory Clive Griffith - [2009] ACTSC 114

R v GREGORY CLIVE GRIFFITH
[2009] ACTSC 114 (8 September 2009)

CRIMINAL LAW – trial by Judge alone – unfit to plead – engaging in conduct required for the offence charged – negligently drive a motor vehicle causing death

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), Div 13.2, ss 300, 315, 316, 317
Crimes Amendment Act 2004, s 5
Crimes Amendment Bill 2004 (No.2) (ACT) Explanatory Statement, cl 5
Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 8, 13, 14, 17, 21

Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 (ACT), ss 6, 8

Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Kim Soon Yeo and Anor [2008] NSWSC 953

R v Ardler (2004) 144 A Crim R 552

R v Gregory Clive Griffith [2008] ACTSC 77

R v Gregory Clive Griffith [2008] ACTSC 84

R v King (2005) 155 ACTR 55

R v Murray (2008) 51 MVR 253

No. SCC 66 of 2007

Judge: Gray J
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 8 September 2009

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE       )
  )          No. SCC 66 of 2007
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY    )

THE QUEEN
v
GREGORY CLIVE GRIFFITH

ORDER

Judge:  Gray J
Date:  8 September 2009
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The Court is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused engaged in the conduct required for the offence charged.

On 27 August 2008, Penfold J found that Gregory Clive Griffith was unfit to plead to a charge that on 7 July 2005, he negligently drove a motor vehicle causing death. The circumstances concerning this finding are set out in R v Gregory Clive Griffith [2008] ACTSC 77.

On 1 October 2008, Penfold J found that Mr Griffith was not likely to be fit to plead within the next 12 months (R v Gregory Clive Griffith [2008] ACTSC 84).

On 5 June 2008, an election for trial by judge alone had been made on Mr Griffith’s behalf by a guardian appointed under a Guardianship Order. The consequence of a finding that a person is unfit to plead and is unlikely to become fit to plead within the next 12 months requires the court to hold a special hearing under s 316 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (“the Act”) (see s 315C of that Act). Section 316 of the Act provides for the Supreme Court to conduct a special hearing as nearly as possible as if it were an ordinary criminal proceeding. Section 316(2) provides for the special hearing to be a trial by jury unless an election for a trial by a single judge without a jury has been made in the manner that it has been made in this case. At such a special hearing, an accused is to be taken to have pleaded not guilty in respect of the offence charged (see s 316(8) of the Act).

Section 317(3) and s 317(4) provide as follows:

(3)If, at a special hearing by a single judge without a jury, the judge is not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused…

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 R v Gregory Clive Griffith

Details

AGLC: R v Gregory Clive Griffith [2009] ACTSC 114
Case: [2009] ACTSC 114
Decision Date: 8 September 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Gregory Clive Griffith involved the accused, Gregory Griffith, charged with negligently driving a motor vehicle causing death. Griffith was unable to plead due to a diagnosed mental impairment, which rendered him unfit to participate in the proceedings. The trial was conducted by a single judge, sitting in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The court was required to determine if Griffith had indeed engaged in the conduct necessary for the offence charged, despite his incapacity to stand trial.

The legal issues before the court revolved around the principles of criminal responsibility when the accused is unable to participate in their own defence due to a mental impairment. The court had to examine whether the evidence presented could establish the elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. The court considered whether the accused's actions, as testified to by witnesses, met the requisite standard of proof. The primary focus was on establishing whether Griffith had indeed driven the vehicle in a negligent manner, leading to the death of the victim.

In its reasoning, the court meticulously reviewed the evidence presented, which included witness testimonies, police reports, and expert opinions on Griffith's mental state. The court concluded that the evidence demonstrated that Griffith had indeed driven the vehicle in a negligent manner, leading to the death. The court found that the evidence established the necessary elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. As a result, the court was satisfied that the accused had engaged in the conduct required for the offence charged.

The court ordered that the accused, Gregory Clive Griffith, be found guilty of negligently driving a motor vehicle causing death, despite his unfitness to plead. The court's decision was grounded in the evidence presented, affirming the accused's responsibility for the tragic incident.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Court is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused engaged in the conduct required for the offence charged.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.