R v Griffiths

Case [2020] ACTSC 51

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Griffiths

Citation:

[2020] ACTSC 51

Hearing Date(s):

12 February 2020

DecisionDate:

13 March 2020

Before:

Loukas-Karlsson J

Decision:

A special verdict of not guilty by reason of mental impairment is entered.          

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – VERDICT OF NOT GUILTY BY WAY OF MENTAL IMPAIRMENT – aggravated burglary – threat to kill – whether the Court considers a verdict of not guilty by way of mental impairment is appropriate – s 321(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) – whether the accused was mentally impaired pursuant to s 28 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT)

Legislation Cited:

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 27, 308, 312

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 27, 28, 30, 34, 321

Mental Health Act 2016 (QLD) s 668

Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) s 68C

Cases Cited:

Fleming v The Queen [1998] HCA 68; 197 CLR 250

Hawkins v The Queen (1994) 179 CLR 500

R v Aleer [2016] ACTSC 75

R v DM [2010] ACTSC 137

R v Massey [2000] ACTSC 107

R v Minani [2005] NSWCCA 226; 63 NSWLR 490

R v Mulcahy [2010] ACTSC 98

R v Stables [2014] NSWSC 697

The Queen v Ardler [2004] ACTCA 4; 144 A Crim R 552

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

Stephen Anthony Griffiths (Accused)

Representation:

Counsel

D Sahu Khan (Crown)

A Trotter (Accused)

Solicitors

ACT DPP (Crown)

Legal Aid (Defendant)

File Number(s):

SCC 242 of 2019

Loukas-Karlsson J

Introduction

Offences

  1. On 12 February the accused pleaded not guilty by way of mental impairment to the following offences allegedly committed on 2 July 2019:

(a) Aggravated burglary (offensive weapon) contrary to s 312 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (Criminal Code) (CC2019/7408). The maximum penalty for this offence is imprisonment for 20 years, a fine, or both.

(b) Unlawful confinement of John Parker contrary to s 34 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (Crimes Act) (CC2019/7409). The maximum penalty for this offence is imprisonment for 10 years.

(c) Threat to kill John Parker being reckless as to whether Mr John Parker would fear that the threat would be carried out contrary to s 30 of the Crimes Act (CC2019/7410). The maximum penalty for this offence is imprisonment for 10 years.

(d) Dishonestly appropriate property, namely car and house keys, a pocketknife, tin snips, and an Australian Government pension letter belonging to John Parker with the intention of permanently depriving him of the property contrary to s 308 of the Criminal Code (CC2019/7411). The maximum penalty for this offence is imprisonment for 14 years, a fine, or both.

  1. In accordance with s 321(2)(b) of the Crimes Act, “the prosecution agrees to the entering” of the special verdicts (T 9.25-27).

  1. Consequently, pursuant to s 321(2)(a) of the Crimes Act, the Court must consider whether verdicts of not guilty because of mental impairment are appropriate.

Facts

  1. On the morning of 2 July 2019, John Parker (the complainant) departed his Ainslie residence and drove to the…

Continue reading R v Griffiths

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Griffiths [2020] ACTSC 51
Case
[2020] ACTSC 51
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved the defendant, Griffiths, who was charged with aggravated burglary and threatening to kill. The matter was heard in the ACT Supreme Court, where the central issue was whether the defendant was mentally impaired at the time of the offences, thereby warranting a verdict of not guilty by way of mental impairment under the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). The court had to determine if Griffiths met the criteria for mental impairment as defined in section 28 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). This required a thorough examination of his mental state and the nature of the offences committed.

The court considered the statutory provisions and relevant case law to assess the defendant's mental state at the time of the offences. The critical question was whether Griffiths had a mental impairment that substantially impaired his ability to understand the nature and quality of his act or to know that it was wrong. The court examined evidence from psychiatric experts and the defendant's behaviour during the commission of the crimes. It was established that Griffiths suffered from severe mental illness, which affected his cognitive functions and decision-making abilities.

After reviewing the evidence and applying the legal standards, the court concluded that Griffiths was indeed mentally impaired at the time of the offences. The severity of his mental illness and its impact on his understanding and control of his actions met the threshold for a verdict of not guilty by way of mental impairment. The court found that Griffiths was not criminally responsible for his actions due to his mental state. The court thus entered a special verdict of not guilty by reason of mental impairment.

Orders

Orders of the court

A special verdict of not guilty by reason of mental impairment is entered.

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.