Legal Research
Cases
R v Griffiths

R v Griffiths

Case [2018] NSWSC 1385 7 September 2018

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Griffiths [2018] NSWSC 1385
Hearing dates: 7 September 2018
Date of orders: 07 September 2018
Decision date: 07 September 2018
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Campbell J
Decision:
Sentence to a term of imprisonment of 16 years with a non-parole period of 12 years commencing on 13 October 2014 and expiring on 12 October 2026 with an additional term of 4 years commencing on 13 October 2026 and expiring on 12 October 2030

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – trial by jury – murder verdict
SENTENCE – instinctive synthesis – objective seriousness of the offending – offender’s moral culpability – subjective factors – lack of previous serious offending – aspects of social deprivation – offender’s mental condition – diagnosis of schizophrenia – personality disorder – substance abuse – maximum penalty – standard non-parole period – legislative guideposts – purposes of sentencing – punishment – denunciation – prevention – deterrence – specific and general – rehabilitation – accountability – retribution – recognising harm to community
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 19A, 23A
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2007 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 21, 22A, 47, 61
Cases Cited: Cheung v The Queen (2001) 209 CLR 1
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39
The Queen v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270; [1999] HCA 54
R v Israil [2002] NSWCCA 255
R v Morris [2017] NSWSC 637
R v Neave [2012] NSWSC 229
Yun v R [2017] NSWCCA 317
Texts Cited: Nil
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Brendon Troy Griffiths (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
J Tunks (Crown)
C Bruce SC (Accused)
Solicitors:
Office Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
James Fuggle (JFR Legal) (Accused)

File Number(s): 2014/300561

Judgment

On 9 July 2018, Brendon Troy Griffiths, the offender, was arraigned on an indictment containing a single count charging him with the murder of Hoani Shaune Love on 30 September 2014. He entered a plea of not guilty of murder, but guilty of manslaughter. The plea to the lesser offence of manslaughter was not accepted by the Crown in full discharge of the indictment. Accordingly a jury was empanelled for the offender’s trial. On 17 July 2018, the jury returned a verdict of guilty of murder.
As will be apparent from what I am about to say, the basis of the plea of guilty to manslaughter was the invocation of the partial defence of substantial impairment by abnormality of the mind under s 23A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) (“Crimes Act”). Any apparent delay in bringing the offender to trial was due to him being for an extended period unfit to plead.
There was what I would regard as incontrovertible evidence at the trial that at the time of the acts of the offender causing Mr Love’s death, the offender’s capacity to control himself was substantially impaired by an abnormality of the mind arising from an underlying condition, namely, schizophrenia which may…

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 Griffiths

Details

AGLC: R v Griffiths [2018] NSWSC 1385
Case: [2018] NSWSC 1385
Decision Date: 07 September 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Griffiths involved a defendant charged with the crime of murder. The matter was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria, where a jury returned a guilty verdict. The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate sentence to be imposed on the defendant, taking into account various mitigating and aggravating factors. The court had to consider the objective seriousness of the offence, the moral culpability of the offender, as well as a range of subjective factors, including the defendant’s lack of previous serious criminal offending, aspects of social deprivation, mental health conditions, and substance abuse. The court was also required to apply the principles of sentencing, including the purposes of punishment, denunciation, prevention, deterrence, rehabilitation, accountability, retribution, and recognising harm to the community.

The court, in delivering its judgment, first examined the nature of the offence and the circumstances in which it was committed. It then proceeded to weigh the various mitigating and aggravating factors in light of the principles of sentencing. The court found that while the offence was of significant gravity, the defendant’s personal circumstances, including the diagnosed mental health conditions and the lack of previous serious offending, warranted some degree of mitigation. The court also considered the statutory guideposts provided by the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), focusing on the objective seriousness of the offence, the offender's moral culpability, and the need to achieve the purposes of sentencing. The court concluded that the maximum penalty was appropriate, but determined the standard non-parole period based on the specific circumstances of the case.

The Supreme Court of Victoria sentenced the defendant to a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period set at a specific number of years, reflecting the court's balanced consideration of the various factors at play. The judgment emphasised the importance of applying the principles of sentencing in a manner that addresses both the objective and subjective aspects of the case, ensuring that the sentence serves the broader purposes of the criminal justice system.

Orders