R v Griffiths

[2017] NSWSC 1666

Supreme Court

New South Wales

• Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Griffiths [2017] NSWSC 1666
Hearing dates:	1 December 2017
Decision date:	01 December 2017
Jurisdiction:	Common Law - Criminal
Before:	Hidden AJ
Decision:	Accused fit to stand trial
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – murder – accused previously found unfit to stand trial – whether with treatment he has become fit
Legislation Cited:	Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990
Cases Cited:	Kesavarajah v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 230 R v Griffiths [2016] NSWSC 1571 R v Presser [1958] VR 45
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Regina Brendon Troy Griffiths
Representation:	Counsel: Ms M Cunneen (Crown) Mr Bruce SC (Accused)   Solicitors: Solicitor for Director of Public Prosecutions James Fuggle Rummery
File Number(s):	2014/300561
Publication restriction:	No

Judgment

1. HIS HONOUR: The accused, Brendon Troy Griffiths, is charged with murder. He is before me on the issue of his fitness to stand trial. On 7 November 2016, Mathews AJ found him unfit to stand trial and referred the matter to the Mental Health Review Tribunal: R v Griffiths [2016] NSWSC 1571.

2. In her judgment, her Honour summarised the Crown case against the accused, which need not be repeated. Her Honour assessed his fitness to stand trial at that time by reference to the familiar criteria set out in R v Presser [1958] VR 45. The evidence before her comprised the reports of two forensic psychiatrists, Dr Gerald Chew, engaged by the defence, and Professor David Greenberg, engaged by the Crown. Their reports are summarised in her Honour’s judgment.

3. Put shortly, the accused was found to be suffering from schizophrenia, and entertained the delusional belief that his legal representatives were corrupt, that they wanted him in gaol and were parties to a conspiracy to secure a conviction by fabricated evidence. He saw his lawyers as part of a justice system which conspired to keep the underclass in prison. Accordingly, he believed that he did not need lawyers as he knew the case and was the only one “that knows the full story.”

4. Dr Chew concluded that, because of his delusions relating to the justice system, he would be unable to instruct a lawyer or participate meaningfully in a trial. Professor Greenberg concluded that, because of his symptoms of mental illness, he would have difficulty appreciating the substantial effect of evidence given in court, as well as deciding on a defence and instructing his counsel. Both psychiatrists expressed the view that he was unfit to stand trial.

5. In the year that has passed since her Honour’s finding, the accused has undergone treatment within the prison system and has been periodically reviewed by the Mental Health Review Tribunal. Before me are supplementary reports, both prepared in November of this year, by Dr Chew and Professor Greenberg. It is clear that his mental state has improved markedly. A brief summary of his progress appears in Professor Greenberg’s report. He has been treated with anti-psychotic medication and gradually improved with psychiatric treatment. He has been co-operative with mental health staff, and there is no longer any evidence of thought disorder (although he is said to have “some residual idiosyncratic beliefs.”)

6. At a review by the Tribunal on 22 September 2017, he was noted to be stabilised in his mental state and was considered to be fit to stand trial.

7. Both forensic psychiatrists are of the same view. Both reports refer to the Presser criteria, affirmed by the High Court in Kesavarajah v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 230. Dr Chew confirmed his diagnosis of schizophrenia, but noted that he “appears to now be in remission of positive symptoms on treatment.” Professor Greenberg found him to have an adequate understanding of the trial process and the functions of the judge, the jury, the prosecutor and his own legal representatives. As to those representatives, he told Professor Greenberg that he could “trust them enough” to represent him and that he was “happy with their representation because they were now listening to his instructions.”

8. Professor Greenberg concluded that the accused could now appreciate the substantial effect of evidence given in court, and was able to give “a coherent account of himself during the time of the alleged offence.” He was of the opinion that he could decide on what defence he should make, including a defence of mental illness or substantial impairment, should either of those arise. He would be able to instruct his lawyers and give evidence at this time, if required to do so. He found the accused currently fit to stand trial, “provided he remain compliant with his psychiatric medication and continue with psychiatric follow-up with his mental health service.”

9. This morning, Mr Bruce SC, for the accused, informed me from the bar table that he and his instructing solicitor are able to communicate with their client and obtain intelligible instructions from him.

10. It is clear that the accused is now fit to stand trial, and the proceedings should continue in accordance with normal trial procedure: s 13 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990. The matter is to be placed in the arraignments list on Friday, 9 February 2018. The accused, of course, is to remain in custody in the meantime.

**********

Amendments

12 December 2017 - amended formatting

Decision last updated: 12 December 2017