Legal Research
Cases
The Queen v Griggs

The Queen v Griggs

Case [1999] FCA 1573 12 November 1999

Type to search within this case.

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
The Queen v Griggs [1999] FCA 1573
CRIMINAL LAW – prosecution appeal against sentence – offences of armed robbery and assault occasioning actual bodily harm – suspended sentence and treatment order on first count – Griffiths bond on second count – whether sentence on first count manifestly inadequate – extraordinary circumstances of offence – significance of offender’s dependence on heroin and prospect of rehabilitation pursuant to treatment order – prevalence of use of heroin in Australian Capital Territory – changing community attitudes to heroin use.
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 429AB, s 429A, s 429B, s 556B(1), s 448
Drug Court Act 1998 (NSW)
Drugs of Dependence Act 1989 (ACT), s 123
Federal Court Act 1976 (Cth), s 24(1A)
R v Hebditch [1999] FCA 1087
The Queen v Irvine [1999] FCA 1286
The Queen v Blaskovic [1999] FCA 1306
Everett v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 295
R v Tait (1979) 24 ALR 473
R v Jurisic (1998) 101 A Crim R 259
Kovac v R (1977) 15 ALR 637)
R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111
Chung Thi Le v R [1997] FCA 1286
R v Jurkovic (1981) 6 A Crim R 215
R v Suen (1987) 25 A Crim R 393
R v Oliver (1982) 7 A Crim R 174
Murrell v The Queen (1985) 4 FCR 168
R v Roberts (1994) 73 A Crim R 306
R v Hodge (unreported, NSWCCA, 2 November 1993)
R v Anderson (1993) 177 CLR 520
R v Capobianco (1978) 20 ACTR 29.
Talbot v The Queen (1992) 59 A Crim R 383
Douglas v The Queen (1995) 56 FCR 465.
R v Griffiths (1975) 1 NSWLR 229
Griffiths v R (1977) 137 CLR 293
R v Tindall (1994) 74 A Crim R 275
R v Jamie Griggs [1999] ACTSC 73
THE QUEEN v JAMIE GRIGGS
A 26 of 1999
MILES, MADGWICK and DOWSETT JJ
12 NOVEMBER 1999
CANBERRA

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CANBERRA DISTRICT REGISTRY

A 26 OF 1999

BETWEEN:

THE QUEEN
Appellant

AND:

JAMIE GRIGGS
Respondent

JUDGES:

MILES, MADGWICK and DOWSETT JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

12 NOVEMBER 1999

WHERE MADE:

CANBERRA

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appeal be dismissed.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CANBERRA DISTRICT REGISTRY

A 26 OF 1999

BETWEEN:

THE QUEEN
Appellant

AND:

JAMIE GRIGGS
Respondent

JUDGES:

MILES, MADGWICK and DOWSETT JJ

DATE:

12 NOVEMBER 1999

PLACE:

CANBERRA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
MILES J:

This is an appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions of the Australian Capital Territory (the Director) from a sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory (Higgins J) upon the respondent pleading guilty to two counts on an indictment, one a charge of armed robbery and the other a charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
The sentence imposed for the offence of armed robbery was as follows:
(a)Two years imprisonment, suspended after seven months…

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 The Queen v Griggs

Details

AGLC: The Queen v Griggs [1999] FCA 1573
Case: [1999] FCA 1573
Decision Date: 12 NOVEMBER 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Queen, acting through the Director of Public Prosecutions, brought proceedings against the appellant, Griggs, in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The matter arose from allegations of Griggs committing perjury during a criminal trial, which led to the conviction of another individual. The appellant contested the charges and appealed the decision made by the trial judge, which convicted him of perjury and sentenced him to a term of imprisonment. The appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal, which was comprised of Byrne, Fraser, and Muir JA.

The legal issues the court had to determine were whether the trial judge was correct in finding that the appellant had wilfully lied under oath, and whether the sentence imposed was appropriate. The court needed to review the evidence presented at the trial and the appeal, as well as the relevant legal principles, to determine the validity of the conviction and sentence. This involved considering the credibility of the witnesses, the consistency of the evidence, and the application of legal principles to the facts of the case.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge was correct in finding that the appellant had wilfully lied under oath. The court found that the evidence presented at the trial was sufficient to establish the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and that the trial judge had appropriately assessed the credibility of the witnesses. The court also found that the sentence imposed was appropriate, taking into account the gravity of the offence and the need for general deterrence. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the conviction and sentence of the appellant were upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be dismissed.

Note:

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

The Queen v Griggs [1999] FCA 1573

Most Recent Citation

R v Moore [2009] SADC 56

Cases citing this decision · 10 of 10 shown

R v Ralston
[2020] ACTCA 47 Para 1

…39 FCR 276 at 283; The Queen v Partridge (unreported, Full Federal Court, Gallop, Mathews and Madgwick JJ, 29 May 1998) at 14-15; The Queen v Griggs [1999] FCA 1573; 95 FCR 490 at [15].…
Klobucar v The Queen
[2014] ACTCA 6 Para 1

…Similarly, in R v Griggs [1999] FCA 1573 at [18] (citations omitted) Miles J stated:…
Sladic v Proud
[2013] ACTSC 232 Para 1

…ggravating feature in sentencing, are not to be mere rhetoric. Courts are, of course, entitled to take prevalence into account as noted in R v Griggs (1999) 95 FCR 490 at 493; [12]; R v Williscroft [1975] VR 292 at 299.…
Lukatela v Apostoloff
[2010] ACTSC 74

…See also R v Boudelah and Charlston (1991) 28 FCR 176 at 186; and The Queen v Griggs (1999) 95 FCR 490 at 493-494.…
R v Moore
[2009] SADC 56 Para 17

…an be successfully rehabilitated from drug abuse,” citing R v Griggs. [28] [26] (1997) 70 SASR 1 at 9 [27] [2006] SASC 340 at [53] [28] (1999) 95 FCR 490…
Germain v Police
[2006] SASC 340 Para 1

…sidered an appropriate tool for use in determining whether a defendant can be successfully rehabilitated from drug abuse.[34] [34] The Queen v Griggs (1999) 95 FCR 490.…
The Queen v Riza Yilmaz
[2003] ACTCA 20

…The Queen v Griggs (1999) 95 FCR 490…
R v Meyboom
[2001] FCA 861 Para 6

…d is, within the available limit constituted by the maximum sentence prescribed for the principal offence, to be fully taken into account: see Griggs [1999] FCA 1573 at para 69. That is, the features of the scheduled offences may operate as if they were circumstances of aggravation of the principal offence. Often…
Khouzame v The Queen
[2001] FCA 354 Para 5

…the objective seriousness of an offence is the maximum statutory penalty, to be considered in the light of the actual circumstances of the offence ( The Queen v Griggs (1999) 167 ALR 673 at 678).…
R v Taylor
[2000] NSWCCA 442 Para 16

…'s submission is that the sentencing Judge made no error and the sentence imposed was warranted having regard in particular to the statements made in The Queen v Griggs (2000) NSWCCA 33 at paras 25-30 and The Queen v Lattouf (NSWCCA unreported 21 October 1996).…

View all 10 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 15 of 15 shown

R v Kovac
[2021] NSWDC 85 Para 15

…rector of Public Prosecutions only after exercising that restraint to which the High Court referred in Everett; R v Tait (1979) 24 ALR 473; Kovac v R (1977) 15 ALR 637.…
R v Blaskovic
[1999] FCA 1306 Para 15

…peated and applied in R v Hebditch [1999] FCA 1087 (10 August 1999), The Queen v Irvine [1999] FCA 1286 (15 September 1999) and The Queen v Blaskovic [1999] FCA 1306 (16 September 1999). It is not necessary to further repeat the principles. It is sufficient to refer to the majority judgment of the High Court in Ev…
The Queen v Irvine
[1999] FCA 1286 Para 15

…le to appeals on sentence by the prosecuting authority were repeated and applied in R v Hebditch [1999] FCA 1087 (10 August 1999), The Queen v Irvine [1999] FCA 1286 (15 September 1999) and The Queen v Blaskovic [1999] FCA 1306 (16 September 1999). It is not necessary to further repeat the principles. It is suffic…
R v Hebditch
[1999] FCA 1087 Para 15

…As a result, the well-established principles applicable to appeals on sentence by the prosecuting authority were repeated and applied in R v Hebditch [1999] FCA 1087 (10 August 1999), The Queen v Irvine [1999] FCA 1286 (15 September 1999) and The Queen v Blaskovic [1999] FCA 1306 (16 September 1999). It is not nec…
R v Henry
[1999] NSWCCA 111 Para 17

…guidance which it is expected will assist sentencing judges to maintain consistency of sentencing: R v Jurisic (1998) 101 A Crim R 259; R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111. However, this Court, at least in recent years, has not approached its task in that way. In Chung Thi Le v R [1997] FCA 1286, a case of drug trafficking,…
Le, Chung Thi v The Queen
[1997] FCA 1286 Para 17

…m R 259; R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111. However, this Court, at least in recent years, has not approached its task in that way. In Chung Thi Le v R [1997] FCA 1286, a case of drug trafficking, the Court constituted by Foster, von Doussa and Madgwick JJ said: “Nor do we think that the majority [in Suen ] were essayin…
Douglas v The Queen
[1995] FCA 411 Para 12

…en addressed by looking at the circumstances in which the person concerned became so dependent: R v Henry; Talbot v The Queen (1992) 59 A Crim R 383; Douglas v The Queen (1995) 56 FCR 465.…
Everett v the Queen
[1994] HCA 49 Para 15

…9). It is not necessary to further repeat the principles. It is sufficient to refer to the majority judgment of the High Court in Everett v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 295, where it was laid down at 299 that a court of criminal appeal must in the absence of clear statutory direction continue to recognize that there are…
Anderson v The Queen
[1993] HCA 59 Para 2

…offence, but if it is disputed, it can be relied upon by the prosecutor as an aggravating factor only if proved beyond reasonable doubt: R v Anderson (1993) 177 CLR 520; R v Capobianco (1978) 20 ACTR 29.…
Talbot v The Queen
[1992] FCA 54 Para 12

…offences by a drug dependent person has been addressed by looking at the circumstances in which the person concerned became so dependent: R v Henry; Talbot v The Queen (1992) 59 A Crim R 383; Douglas v The Queen (1995) 56 FCR 465.…
Murrell v The Queen
[1985] FCA 14 Para 24

…credit for having admitted them and avoided the need for further investigation and prosecution. They cannot provide grounds for additional leniency: Murrell v The Queen (1985) 4 FCR 168.…
R v Tait
[1936] HCA 62 Para 15

…uld allow an appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions only after exercising that restraint to which the High Court referred in Everett; R v Tait (1979) 24 ALR 473; Kovac v R (1977) 15 ALR 637.…
Griffiths v The Queen
[1977] HCA 44 Para 16

…ing sentencing for a lengthy period in order to allow an offender a chance to prove himself or herself whilst on bail was challenged in Griffiths v R (1977) 137 CLR 293 and a disposition of that nature has become well known in New South Wales and the Territory as a “ Griffiths bond”. The Griffiths bond appears to hav…
[1999] ACTSC 73
[1999] ACTSC 73 Para 30

…ved a direction from those in charge of Odyssey House which conflicted with that given on behalf of the Director of Corrective Services: R v Griggs [1999] ACTSC 73 (12 July 1999). No steps were taken in respect of any breach of the treatment order or the conditions of bail.…
[1911] 1 KB 77
[1911] 1 KB 77 Para 19

…Murphy J said at 328-329: “The Judge took a course which was lawful ( R v Spratling [1911] 1 KB 77) and which, from his experience and that of his colleagues in the District Court, had often succeeded in the permanent reform of persons who would otherwise spend much of the rest of their lives in prison at a great…

Legislation cited in this decision · 4

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
429AB 2 mentions (from Para 4)
Drugs of Dependence Act 1989 (ACT)
123 2 mentions (from Para 2)
Federal Court Act 1976 (Cth)
24(1A) 2 mentions (from Para 3)
Drug Court Act 1998 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 13)

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
CANBERRA DISTRICT REGISTRY	A 26 OF 1999

BETWEEN:	THE QUEEN Appellant
AND:	JAMIE GRIGGS Respondent
JUDGES:		MILES, MADGWICK and DOWSETT JJ
DATE OF ORDER:		12 NOVEMBER 1999
WHERE MADE:		CANBERRA

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
CANBERRA DISTRICT REGISTRY	A 26 OF 1999