R v Griffith

The appeal by the respondent, Griffith, against a decision of the District Court of Queensland concerned the admissibility of statements made by two witnesses, Noga and Leone. The primary issue was whether these statements were so unfair to the accused that their admission would constitute a miscarriage of justice, or whether they were so incredible that they amounted to no evidence. The case was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal, where the respondents sought a ruling under section 592A of the Queensland Criminal Code to exclude the statements from the trial.

The court examined the inconsistencies in the evidence provided by Noga and Leone, weighing whether these discrepancies rendered the evidence inadmissible. The respondents argued that the inconsistencies in the statements were significant enough to warrant exclusion, as they believed the evidence was unreliable and potentially prejudicial. However, the court considered that the inconsistencies did not necessarily undermine the overall reliability of the evidence, particularly when viewed in conjunction with other corroborative evidence. The court held that the inconsistencies, while notable, did not reach the threshold of incredibility or unfairness required for exclusion under section 592A.

Consequently, the court found that the evidence provided by Noga and Leone was admissible. The appeal was dismissed, and the motion for a ruling that the evidence contained in the statements of Noga and Leone should not be adduced in the trial against the accused was refused. The court's decision affirmed that the evidence, despite its inconsistencies, was not so unfair or incredible as to be inadmissible.