R v Griffey - [2006] VSC 86

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1410 of 2006

IN THE MATTER of the Bail Act 1977 and

IN THE MATTER of the Crimes Act 1958 and

IN THE MATTER OF an Application for Bail of: DIANE FAYE GRIFFEY

---

JUDGE:	King J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	8 and 9 March 2006
DATE OF SENTENCE:	9 March 2006
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Griffey
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSC 86

---

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr RA Scheid
For the Applicant	Mr C Dane QC

HER HONOUR:

Diane Faye Griffey, I intend to grant bail with conditions which include:

·that you reside at a specified residential address;
·that you report daily to the officer in charge of a specified police station;
·that you not attend any international points of departure;
·that you surrender any passport held and not apply for any further passport; and
·that you undertake to give 24 hours notice to the informant of any change of address.

The reasons for the grant of bail are that the applicant has demonstrated in my view that exceptional circumstances exist which justify the grant of bail. I am equally satisfied that she will surrender herself into custody and answer to her bail; that she is unlikely to commit an offence whilst on bail or endanger the safety and welfare of the public or interfere with witnesses or obstruct the course of justice.

The Crown have not submitted that she would be a risk in respect of any of those matters, but rely on the fact that she has to demonstrate exceptional circumstances.

There are a combination of reasons that in my view in totality constitute exceptional circumstances. First, the strength of the Crown case. The Crown have submitted that this is a circumstantial case and it is neither a weak case nor a strong case, but one that ultimately is a matter for the jury. The Crown conceded that the authorities acknowledge that where there is a weak case that may amount to exceptional circumstances.

The main thrust of argument presented by the Crown in relation to this is that the bail application has been made with almost indecent haste. Mr Rapke QC stated in the submission:

"What we've got here is an application which is made 22 days after the arrest of the applicant on the most serious charge that can be proffered against an individual in the State at the moment. It's made at a time, Your Honour, before - as Your Honour has observed in passing - before Your Honour has access to statements of witnesses, before even the interview with the applicant has been transcribed and of course before anybody in this court, including myself, has any opportunity to digest the brief of evidence and make meaningful submissions about the strength of the case against the applicant. It is a very difficult situation. Indeed, some judges might even say that an application…

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 Griffey

Details

AGLC: R v Griffey [2006] VSC 86
Case: [2006] VSC 86
Decision Date: 9 March 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Diane Faye Griffey applied for bail following her arrest and charge for the murder of her estranged husband. The Crown argued that exceptional circumstances must be demonstrated for bail to be granted in such a serious case. The Supreme Court of Victoria, Criminal Division, presided over by King J, was tasked with determining whether exceptional circumstances existed to justify the grant of bail to the applicant. The court had to assess the strength of the Crown's case, the applicant's opportunity and motive, the impact of the potential failure of the family business, the effect of the delay in the proceedings, and the welfare of the applicant's three children.

The court found that while the Crown's case was arguable, it was not strong. The evidence against the applicant included circumstantial details such as text messages sent from the same mobile tower as the applicant's phone, discrepancies in statements, and the applicant's cheque kiting. However, there was a lack of physical evidence linking the applicant to the crime. The business, which the applicant and the deceased ran together for over 15 years, was in dire financial straits, and its potential failure was a significant consideration. Additionally, the delay in the proceedings and the impact on the applicant's children also factored into the decision. The court concluded that a combination of these circumstances constituted exceptional circumstances warranting the grant of bail. The court granted bail with specific conditions, including residence at a specified address, daily reporting to a police station, surrender of any passport, and notification of any change of address.

The final orders of the court were that bail be granted with the aforementioned conditions. The court directed the applicant's counsel to provide details of the specified residential address and the nearest 24-hour police station for reporting purposes.

Orders