R v Greig - [2025] NZHC 2145

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2024-009-4424

[2025] NZHC 2145

THE KING

V

ALEX ROBIN GREIG

Hearing: 1 August 2025

Appearances:

A M Harvey for Crown

K J Basire and J D Lucas for Defendant

Judgment:

1 August 2025

ORAL JUDGMENT OF OSBORNE J

Introduction

[1] Around midnight on Saturday 30 December 2023 there was a motor vehicle collision on Tunnel Road in Heathcote Valley, Christchurch. As a result of the collision, two victims were declared deceased at the scene and three others, together with the defendant, Alex Greig, were taken to Christchurch Public Hospital in critical conditions. The two deceased victims and one of the injured victims had been travelling south in a car. One of the other injured victims had also been travelling south but on a motorcycle close behind the others’ vehicle. The defendant and the other injured victim were travelling north when the car they were in collided with the other car.

R v GREIG [2025] NZHC 2145 [1 August 2025]

The finding of unfitness

[2] The defendant is charged with the manslaughter of two victims1 and with being a person in charge of a motor vehicle, causing injury to the other three victims, while having excess blood alcohol.2

[3] The defendant has been found unfit to stand trial pursuant to s 8A Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 (CP(MIP) Act).3 The defendant was assessed by two health assessors for the fitness for trial hearing—Dr James Foulds and Dr Peter Dean, both consultant psychiatrists. They found the defendant has a diffuse axonal injury. Both experts confirmed they saw very little chance of substantial improvement in the defendant’s cognitive functioning based on the natural history of the injury of the kind he has experienced.4

The scope of the s 10(2) involvement hearing

The statutory provisions and the Court’s approach to the hearing

[4] The defendant’s involvement in what occurred now falls to be determined pursuant to s 10(2) of the CP(MIP) Act which relevantly provides:

10 Inquiry before trial into defendant’s involvement in the offence

…

(2) The court must decide whether the court is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the evidence against the
defendant is sufficient to establish that the defendant caused the act or omission that forms the basis of the offence with which the defendant is charged.

…

[5] In Rafferty v R, the Court of Appeal agreed with the conclusion expressed by Edwards J in R v Tongia that “the full force of the protections enshrined in our criminal

1      Manslaughter: Crimes Act 1961, ss 160(2)(a), 171 and 177 – maximum penalty life imprisonment.
2      Person in charge of motor vehicle causing injury: Land Transport Act 1998, s 61(1)(b) – maximum penalty five years’ imprisonment or $20,000 fine.
3      R v Greig [2025] NZHC 1064.
4      At [38], referring to the experts’ joint memorandum dated 16 April 2025.

justice system, and most importantly those found in the…

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 2145
Case: [2025] NZHC 2145
Decision Date: 1 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Greig involved a motor vehicle collision on Tunnel Road in Heathcote Valley, Christchurch, which resulted in two fatalities and three critically injured victims, including the defendant, Alex Robin Greig. Greig was charged with manslaughter and causing injury while having excess blood alcohol. Greig had been assessed as unfit to stand trial due to a diffuse axonal injury, leading to a permanent cognitive impairment. The court was required to determine whether the evidence against Greig was sufficient to establish that he caused the acts or omissions that formed the basis of the offences. The court also needed to consider whether the unlawfulness of the defendant's actions should be weighed, and if so, whether the defence of self-defence or mistake could apply. The standard of proof required was the balance of probabilities.

The court found that the evidence, including CCTV footage and witness statements, established that Greig had crossed from the northbound lane to the southbound lane and collided with the vehicle of Patrick Anngow, causing fatal injuries to Anngow and Babe Wihongi. The court was satisfied that Greig's driving constituted a major departure from the standard of care expected of a reasonable person and that his driving was likely to cause more than trivial harm to others. The court found that Greig's actions were a substantial and operative cause of the deaths and injuries. The court rejected the possibility of dismissing the manslaughter charges and considering an included charge, finding that Greig was involved in the offences as charged.

The court ordered inquiries to determine the most suitable way of dealing with Greig under the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003. Greig was remanded in bail with an added condition to attend all appointments as directed. A disposition hearing was scheduled for the first available date, to be completed within 30 days of the judgment.

Orders