R v Griffiths

Case [2024] NSWDC 419

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Griffiths [2024] NSWDC 419
Hearing dates: 06 September 2024
Date of orders: 13 September 2024
Decision date: 13 September 2024
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Fitzsimmons SC DCJ
Decision:

The expert evidence of Dr Hayley Cullen and Professor Kristen Pammer is inadmissible.

Catchwords:

CRIME – pretrial determination – drive manner dangerous causing death – expert evidence – inattentional or change blindness – s 135 considerations – probative value – substantially outweighed by prejudicial effect

Legislation Cited:

Evidence Act 1995, ss 79, 108C, 135

Cases Cited:

BQ v The King [2024] HCA 29

IMM vThe Queen (2016) 257 CLR 300

Jiminez v the Queen (1992) 173 CLR 572, 579; [1992] HCA 14

Lang vThe Queen [2023] HCA 29

McBride v The Queen (1966) 115 CLR 44

Smith v Aircraft Maintenance Service Australia (AMSA) Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 264

TL v King [2022] HCA 35

Category:Procedural rulings
Parties: Rex
Samuel Griffiths
Representation:

Counsel:
Ms N Keay (Crown)
Mr P Kondich (Accused)

Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions NSW (DPP) (Crown)
Lambert Legal (Accused)
File Number(s): 2022/00187273
Publication restriction: Not to be published until completion of trial

Judgment

  1. The accused is charged, by one count on an indictment, that:

  1. On 27 June 2022, at Wollongong in the State of New South Wales, did drive a vehicle, namely, a Premier Illawarra bus registration MO895, when it was involved in an impact occasioning the death of Danuta Kozak, and at the time of impact Samuel Griffiths was driving the vehicle in a manner dangerous to other persons.

  1. The accused has pleaded not guilty, and the matter is listed for trial at Wollongong District Court commencing 14 October 2024.

  2. On 26 June 2024, the Court delivered judgment as to the relevance of two expert reports upon which the accused relies.

  3. The judgment refers to the one charge, the Crown case, the facts in issue and the expert evidence. The Court determined that the evidence was relevant although other issues pertaining to their admissibility were to be determined. It is appropriate to restate the Crown case and facts in issue as recorded in the earlier judgment.

The Crown case

  1. There is no issue as to the objective facts the Crown seeks to prove in circumstances where the events leading to the death of the deceased were captured on multiple CCTV devices, including cameras installed in the bus being driven by the accused.

  2. At about 10:00am on 27 June 2022, the accused was driving a bus north on Corrimal Street, Wollongong on approach to the intersection with Crown Street. As the accused approached the intersection, he was faced with a red traffic arrow waiting to turn right into Crown Street.

  3. At the same time, the deceased was waiting to cross at a clearly marked and traffic light controlled pedestrian crossing on the eastern side of the intersection. As the accused waited for the light to turn green, the deceased was given the green walk signal and proceeded…

Continue reading R v Griffiths

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Griffiths [2024] NSWDC 419
Case
[2024] NSWDC 419
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Griffiths involved a defendant charged with causing death by driving in a dangerous manner. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining the admissibility of expert evidence proposed by the defendant, focusing on phenomena such as inattentional or change blindness, and the application of section 135 of the Evidence Act 2001. The court had to assess whether this evidence was relevant and whether its probative value substantially outweighed any prejudicial effect it might have.

The primary legal issues before the court were the admissibility of expert evidence concerning inattentional or change blindness and the application of the exclusionary provisions in section 135 of the Evidence Act. The court needed to determine if the expert evidence was relevant to the facts of the case, specifically whether it could assist in establishing that the defendant’s driving was not dangerous. Additionally, the court had to weigh the probative value of this evidence against its potential prejudicial effect, considering whether the prejudicial impact would substantially outweigh its probative value.

In its reasoning, the court held that the expert evidence proposed by the defendant was not admissible. The court found that the evidence did not directly address the issue of whether the defendant's driving was dangerous. Furthermore, the court concluded that the probative value of the evidence was substantially outweighed by the prejudicial effect, as it could lead the jury to focus on peripheral issues rather than the core matter of dangerous driving. Consequently, the court ruled that the evidence of Dr Hayley Cullen and Professor Kristen Pammer was inadmissible under section 135 of the Evidence Act.

The court made an order that the expert evidence of Dr Hayley Cullen and Professor Kristen Pammer is inadmissible in the proceedings against the defendant. This decision ensured that the trial would proceed without the contested expert evidence, maintaining the focus on the central issue of the defendant’s conduct at the time of the incident.

Orders

Orders of the court

The expert evidence of Dr Hayley Cullen and Professor Kristen Pammer is inadmissible.

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.