R v Griffiths

Case [2013] QCA 120

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Griffiths [2013] QCA 120

PARTIES:

R
v
GRIFFITHS, Trevor Harry
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 107 of 2012
SC No 155 of 2012
SC No 1030 of 2010

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

21 May 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

1 February 2013

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P and White JA and Dalton J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, Margaret McMurdo P and White JA concurring as to the order made, Dalton J dissenting

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE – POLICE INTERROGATION – DISCRETION TO EXCLUDE CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS – where appellant made inculpatory statements in impugned interview to police about involvement in double murder – where primary judge refused application, under s 590AA of the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) for an interview to be excluded from evidence – where police gave appellant relevant warnings and cautions – where appellant sleep deprived – where appellant kept talking, and police continued questioning appellant, after appellant requested questioning cease – where police asked appellant to reveal location of bodies for sake deceased persons’ families – whether inculpatory statements made voluntarily – whether, if voluntary, impugned interview should be excluded for public policy reasons or in fairness to the appellant

Constitution Act 1982 (Canada), Part I (Charter of Rights and Freedoms)
Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld), s 590AA
Criminal Law Amendment Act 1894 (Qld), s 10
Police Powers and Responsibilities Regulation 2000 (Qld), sch 10 (Responsibilities code, cl 35)

Attorney-General (NSW) v Martin (1909) 9 CLR 713; [1909] HCA 74, cited
Bunning v Cross (1978) 141 CLR 54; [1978] HCA 22, cited
Cleland v The Queen (1982) 151 CLR 1; [1982] HCA 67, cited
Collins v The Queen (1980) 31 ALR 257; [1980] FCA 72, cited
Cornelius v The King (1936) 55 CLR 235; [1936] HCA 25, cited
Hough v Ah Sam (1912) 15 CLR 452; [1912] HCA 78, cited
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40, cited
MacPherson v The Queen (1981) 147 CLR 512; [1981] HCA 46, cited
McDermott v The King (1948) 76 CLR 501; [1948] HCA 23, cited
R v Lee (1950) 82 CLR 133; [1950] HCA 25, cited
R v Oickle (2000) 2 SCR 3; [2000] SCC 38, considered
R v Playford & Griffiths [2012] QSC 17, considered
R v Thomas (2006) 14 VR 475; (2006) 163 A Crim R 567; [2006] VSCA 165, considered
R v Tofilau (No 2) (2006) 13 VR 28; (2006) 160 A Crim R 549; [2006] 13 VSCA 40, cited
The Queen v Swaffield (1998) 192 CLR 159; [1998] HCA 1, cited
Tofilau v The Queen (2007) 231 CLR 396; [2007] HCA 39

Continue reading R v Griffiths

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Griffiths [2013] QCA 120
Case
[2013] QCA 120
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Griffiths, appealed against his conviction for two counts of murder. The primary issue was whether the trial judge was correct to refuse to exclude a confession made during police interrogation. The appellant argued that his inculpatory statements should not have been admitted as evidence because they were not voluntary and should have been excluded under public policy or in the interests of fairness. The case was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal.

The court was required to determine whether the appellant's statements were voluntary and whether the interview should be excluded from evidence on public policy grounds or for reasons of fairness to the appellant. The appellant submitted that the trial judge should have excluded the statements because they were not voluntary, due to factors such as sleep deprivation and the continued interrogation despite the appellant's requests to stop. The appellant also argued that the interview should be excluded on public policy grounds or for reasons of fairness to the appellant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge was correct in finding that the appellant's statements were voluntary and that there was no basis to exclude the statements. The court found that the police had given the appellant the relevant warnings and cautions, and that there was no evidence to suggest that the appellant's will was overborne at the time of the confession. The court also found that there were no public policy reasons or reasons of fairness to the appellant that warranted the exclusion of the statements. The court held that the trial judge had correctly exercised their discretion in admitting the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence of the appellant were upheld. The court found that the trial judge had correctly exercised their discretion in admitting the confession as evidence, and that there were no grounds to exclude the statements on the basis of public policy or fairness to the appellant.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed.

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.