R v Greig - [2025] NZHC 2889

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2024-009-4424

[2025] NZHC 2889

THE KING

v

ALEX ROBIN GREIG

Hearing: 1 October 2025

Counsel:

S J Mallett for Crown

K J Basire for Defendant

Judgment:

1 October 2025

ORAL JUDGMENT OF GENDALL J

[Disposition hearing]

Introduction

[1] Mr Alex Greig you face two charges of manslaughter1 and three charges of being a person in charge of a motor vehicle causing injury.2 On 6 May of this year, Eaton J in this Court found Mr Greig that you were unfit to stand trial.3 On 1 August of this year, Osborne J also concluded Mr Greig that you were involved in the offences as you were charged.4

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 171 and 177: maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
2      Land Transport Act 1998, s 61(1)(b): maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment or a $20,000 fine.
3      R v Greig [2025] NZHC 1064.
4      R v Greig [2025] NZHC 2145.

R v GREIG [2025] NZHC 2889 [1 October 2025]

[2] The remaining matter for me to determine today is one of disposition. In other words how Mr Greig you should be dealt with under ss 24 and 25 of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 (CPMIP). To assist in this matter, a Health Assessment Report has been provided by Ms Kingi, a consultant clinical psychologist, and Dr McLeavey, a consultant psychiatrist.

[3] It is necessary for me first to traverse the difficult facts of this case and I now do so briefly.

The offending

[4] On 30 December 2023, Mr Greig you were driving on Tunnel Road heading towards Christchurch from Lyttelton. At the time, you were unlicenced with your learner’s licence having expired in May 2023. In the front passenger seat of the vehicle was Mr Monsall, who owned the vehicle and was unknown to you. Mr Greig you were driving over 100 km/h in a 50 km/h zone. Approximately 1.5 km after leaving the tunnel, prior to the Port Hills Road off-ramp, the motorist ahead of you indicated to take the exit. This section of the road has a speed limit of 100 km/h and has two lanes heading in both directions, with a centre barrier separating the lanes.

[5] Mr Greig you overtook the other motorist, and in doing so ended up on the wrong side of the centre barrier, driving north in the south bound lanes. You approached a slight bend in the road and narrowly missed an oncoming motorist. At approximately 11.57 pm your vehicle Mr Greig collided head-on with a Chevrolet motor car. A driver and two passengers were in the Chevrolet. The impact caused the Chevrolet to explode into a large fireball. After the impact, both cars spun sideways. While your vehicle Mr Greig was spinning, it was hit by a motorcyclist. At the time of the crash, your average speed Mr Greig was estimated at between 120–139 km/h, and the Chevrolet…

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 R v Greig

Details

AGLC: R v Greig [2025] NZHC 2889
Case: [2025] NZHC 2889
Decision Date: 1 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Greig, heard in the High Court of New Zealand at Christchurch, involves Mr Alex Robin Greig facing charges of manslaughter and being a person in charge of a motor vehicle causing injury. The charges stem from a serious car accident on 30 December 2023, where Mr Greig, driving under the influence and without a valid license, collided head-on with another vehicle, causing fatal injuries to two occupants and critical injuries to others involved. Previously, Eaton J had found Mr Greig unfit to stand trial, and Osborne J confirmed his involvement in the offenses. The court now had to determine Mr Greig's disposition under the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003.

The legal issues before the court were whether Mr Greig should be detained under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992 or the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003, or if he should be released into the community. The Health Assessment Report by Ms Annmaree Kingi and Dr Simone McLeavey indicated that Mr Greig had severe neurological deficits due to a traumatic brain injury, rendering him unfit to stand trial and unlikely to recover sufficiently to face trial. The report also highlighted Mr Greig's reliance on external support systems and his current abstinence from substances.

Gendall J, presiding over the case, concluded that Mr Greig did not meet the criteria for detention under the aforementioned Acts due to the absence of a treatable mental disorder or intellectual disability. The court noted that Mr Greig's current condition posed minimal risk to the public, and his needs were being met through family support and rehabilitation services. Consequently, the court ordered Mr Greig's immediate release under section 25(1)(d) of the CPMIP Act. The court also considered the request for a stay of proceedings, acknowledging the victims' families' statements and deciding to grant the stay to prevent premature recommencement of the proceedings, should Mr Greig's condition improve.

The final orders of the court were for Mr Greig's immediate release and a stay of the criminal proceedings, with the understanding that the Crown could apply to lift the stay if Mr Greig's condition sufficiently improves. The court acknowledged the gravity of the victims' loss and the importance of providing a platform for the victims' families to express their sentiments.

Orders