R v Griffiths (No 2)

The matter involved the accused, Griffiths, who faced charges for dangerous driving causing death. The court was tasked with determining whether expert evidence about inattentional blindness and change blindness could be admitted in the case. The High Court of Australia heard the appeal.

The legal issues centred around the relevance of expert reports that discussed psychological concepts such as inattentional blindness and change blindness. The court had to decide whether these reports were pertinent to the circumstances of the case, specifically if they could provide a defence of honest and reasonable mistake of fact regarding the accused's state of mind at the time of the incident. The court's role was to assess whether these expert opinions could assist in understanding the accused's perception and reaction to the events leading to the fatal accident.

The court determined that the experts' reports were relevant to the issues of inattentional blindness and change blindness, which could potentially support a defence of an honest and reasonable mistake of fact. The court found that these concepts could explain the accused's state of mind and perception at the time of the incident, which were pertinent to the defence's argument. While the court acknowledged the relevance of the expert evidence, it noted that other admissibility issues remained to be resolved. Consequently, the court held that the expert evidence was admissible to the extent that it was relevant to the case.

The court ordered that the evidence of the experts, Professor Kristen Pammer and Dr Hayley Cullen, was relevant. However, further issues regarding the admissibility of their evidence would be determined at a later stage.