R v Griffiths - [2018] NSWSC 1116

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Griffiths [2018] NSWSC 1116
Hearing dates: 9 July 2018
Date of orders: 09 July 2018
Decision date: 09 July 2018
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Campbell J
Decision:
I exclude the representations contained in Exhibit Voir Dire 7.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – evidence - voir dire – admissibility of evidence – risk of jury misusing evidence outweighs probative value
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 23A;
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 137, 192
Cases Cited: R v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308; [2016] HCA 35;
R v Trotter (1993) 35 NSWLR 428;
R v White [1998] 2 SCR 72
Texts Cited: Nil
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Brendon Troy Griffiths (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
J Tunks (Crown)
C Bruce SC (Accused)
Solicitors:
Office Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
JFR Legal (Accused)

File Number(s): 2014/300561

Judgment

The accused has been arraigned on a single charge of murder. He is said to have murdered the deceased Mr Love on 27 September 2014 when he struck him very heavily with his elbow causing Mr Love to fall and strike his head. Mr Love died on 30 September 2014 from the effects of head and traumatic brain injuries then received.
When arraigned in this Court today Mr Griffiths entered a plea of not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter. This plea was not accepted by the Crown Prosecutor in full discharge of the indictment. Although a jury has been empanelled and the jury has received my opening direction they are yet to hear the opening on behalf of either the Crown or the accused.
A question has arisen about the admissibility of certain representations contained in two statements of a witness Kymberley Ann Sharp dated 30 September 2014 and 3 October 2014 respectively. From my understanding of what I have been told about the issues in the case at the directions hearing, and by counsel today, I apprehend that the basis upon which Mr Griffiths sought to have accepted a plea of guilty of manslaughter is the availability of the partial defence of substantial impairment by abnormality of the mind available under s 23A Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) (“Crimes Act”).
I interpolate that it will be apparent from the short narrative I have recounted already in these reasons that this matter has been unduly slow in coming to trial for the reason that at different times while the case has been pending Mr Griffiths has been found to be unfit to plead. He is now, on all of the evidence before me, fit to plead but as I have said his mental illness remains relevant to the issues the jury have to determine.
I have not seen all of the evidence but on the material tendered on the voir dire, which includes a report of Professor David Greenberg, a well-known forensic psychiatrist, when the events causing Mr Love’s death occurred Mr Griffiths had been diagnosed and…

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 1116
Case: [2018] NSWSC 1116
Decision Date: 09 July 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court was between the Crown and the defendant, Griffiths. The dispute centred around the admissibility of certain evidence in the context of a criminal trial. The court had to determine whether this evidence should be allowed to be presented to the jury during the trial. This decision was made during a voir dire hearing, a preliminary examination of the evidence's admissibility.

The primary legal issue for the court was whether the probative value of the contested evidence was outweighed by the risk of the jury misusing it. The court had to carefully consider the potential impact of the evidence on the jury's decision-making process and weigh this against its potential to contribute to the establishment of facts relevant to the case. The court was tasked with ensuring that the jury would be able to properly consider the evidence in the context of the trial without being unduly influenced by its potentially prejudicial aspects.

The court found that the risk of the jury misusing the evidence did indeed outweigh its probative value. It concluded that allowing the evidence to be presented to the jury could result in a miscarriage of justice, as the prejudicial impact of the evidence was too great. Consequently, the court ruled that the evidence should be excluded from the trial. The court emphasised the importance of protecting the fairness of the trial and the rights of the defendant in reaching this decision.

The final orders of the court were that the contested evidence would not be admitted in the trial against Griffiths. The court's ruling was based on a careful consideration of the potential risks and benefits of the evidence, and a determination that the prejudicial impact on the jury outweighed its probative value. This decision ensures that the trial will proceed in a fair and just manner, with the jury able to make a decision based on relevant and reliable evidence.

Orders