R v Griggs

[2006] ACTCA 3

THE QUEEN v JAMIE GRIGGS [2006]
ACTCA 3 (14 February 2006)

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

No. ACTCA 33- 2005
No. SCC 155 of 2004
Judges:        Crispin P, Gray and Lander JJ  
Court of Appeal of the Australian Capital Territory
Date:           14 February 2006

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )          No. ACTCA 33 - 2005
  )          No. SCC 155 of 2004
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )
  )

COURT OF APPEAL  )

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:THE QUEEN

Appellant

AND:JAMIE GRIGGS     

Respondent

ORDER

Judges:  Crispin P, Gray and Lander JJ
Date:  14 February 2006
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. the appeal against Higgins CJ’s decision rejecting the plea of guilty to an offence of breaching a protection order contrary to section 34 of the Protection Orders Act 2001 (ACT) be upheld;

2. by consent, the charge be amended by deleting the words, “who had been personally served with a copy of the protection order”;

3. the respondent be convicted of the offence of breaching the protection order;

4. the respondent be sentenced to the rising of the Court.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )          No. ACTCA 33- 2005
  )          No. SCC 155 of 2004 
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )
  )

COURT OF APPEAL  )

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:THE QUEEN

Appellant

AND:JAMIE GRIGGS

Respondent

Judges:  Crispin P, Gray and Lander JJ
Date:  14 February 2006
Place:  Canberra

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

CRISPIN P:

1. This is a Crown appeal against orders made by the Chief Justice on 29 June 2005. His Honour, in effect, made three orders.

1. First, his Honour rejected a plea of guilty entered by the respondent to a charge of contravening a protection order contrary to section 34 of the Protection Orders Act 2001 (ACT). 

1. Second, his Honour ordered that that charge be dismissed. 

1. Third, his Honour ordered that a charge of breaching an earlier recognizance also be dismissed. 

1. During the course of the proceedings, Mr Refshauge SC, the Director of Public Prosecutions, indicated that he wished to withdraw the appeal against the third of these orders, so I will say nothing more about it. 

1. So far as the appeal against the first order is concerned, it seems clear that there was some confusion on the part of counsel, the nature of which need not be presently described, and that as a consequence his Honour was misled.  The appeal against that order has now been conceded by Mr Doig, who appears of behalf of the appellant.

1. The appeal on that point having been conceded, it seems to be inevitable that the order dismissing the charge must also be upheld.

1. Mr Doig has indicated that the respondent adheres to his earlier plea of guilty to that charge and it is now appropriate for the respondent to be sentenced in relation to it. 

1. The approach…