R v Greig - [2025] NZHC 1064

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2024-009-004424

[2025] NZHC 1064

THE KING

v

ALEX ROBIN GREIG

Hearing: On the papers

Appearances:

A M Harvey for Crown

K J Basire and J D Lucas for Defendant

Judgment:

6 May 2025

JUDGMENT OF EATON J

This judgment was delivered by me on …….. at ……… pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

R v GREIG [2025] NZHC 1064 [6 May 2025]

Introduction

[1] Alex Robin Greig (aged 37) faces trial on two charges of manslaughter1 and three charges of being a person in charge of a motor vehicle causing injury.2

[2] I received reports from two health assessors who have considered Mr Greig’s fitness to stand trial. The expert evidence is unanimous that Mr Greig is currently unfit to stand trial. This judgment considers whether Mr Greig is fit to stand trial under s 8A of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 (CP(MIP) Act). I am required to determine whether, given the evidence of the experts, the defendant is mentally impaired and whether he is unfit to stand trial.3 If he is found fit, the court must continue proceedings.4 If he is found unfit, the court must then inquire into the defendant’s involvement in the offence.5

The charges

[3] Mr Greig’s learner’s licence expired in May 2023. After this, he was unlicenced. The Crown alleges that on 30 December 2023, Mr Greig was driving on Tunnel Road heading towards Christchurch from Lyttleton. Mr Greig was driving a Toyota owned by Mr Monsall, who was, at the time of the incident giving rise to the charges, the front seat passenger, but who is unknown to the defendant. While in the Lyttleton tunnel, Mr Greig was 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 offramp, the motorist ahead of Mr Greig 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. A centre barrier, separating the lanes, is in place from this point in the road.

[4] Mr Greig 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. He approached a slight bend in the road and narrowly missed an oncoming motorist. At approximately
11.57 pm Mr Greig’s vehicle collided head-on with a Chevrolet vehicle. A driver and

1      Crimes Act ss 160(2)(a), 171 and 177; maximum penalty life imprisonment.
2      Land Transport Act 1998, s 61(1)(b); maximum penalty five years’ imprisonment or $20,000 fine.
3      Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003, s 8A(2).
4      Section 8A(4).
5      Section 8A(5).

two passengers were within the Chevrolet. The impact caused the Chevrolet to explode into a large fireball. After the impact, both the cars spun sideways. While Mr Greig’s vehicle was…

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 1064
Case: [2025] NZHC 1064
Decision Date: 6 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Alex Robin Greig is on trial for two charges of manslaughter and three charges of being a person in charge of a motor vehicle causing injury. Greig, who was driving unlicenced at the time, allegedly caused a fatal head-on collision in the Lyttleton tunnel. The court has received reports from two health assessors who have concluded that Greig is unfit to stand trial due to a severe traumatic brain injury. The court must determine whether Greig is mentally impaired and unfit to stand trial under the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003. The legal principles that apply are not in dispute and are based on the need to promote fairness to a defendant, the integrity of the criminal justice system, and society’s interest in having a reliable criminal justice system. The court must consider if Greig has the capacity to participate effectively in his trial.

The court has considered the reports of both psychiatrists, Dr Foulds and Dr Dean, who both concluded that Greig is unfit to stand trial. Dr Foulds found Greig to have a diffuse axonal injury of the brain, cognitive impairments, particularly in relation to attention, memory and language, and fatigue. Greig struggled to retain information about the charges, potential consequences of pleas, and could not participate effectively in an evidential trial due to his poor memory and fatigue. Dr Dean also found Greig to have a mild to moderate cognitive impairment secondary to brain injury, a limited capacity to understand the nature and purposes of proceedings against him, a poor recollection of the accident, inability to process court information, and limitations in his capacity to make competent decisions about these proceedings. Given these limitations, the court is satisfied that Greig did not have sufficient understanding to make an informed plea, understand the legal process, or communicate adequately with counsel for the purposes of conducting a defence. The court also finds that a postponement of the fitness determination is not appropriate as it is unlikely that Greig will see substantial improvement in cognitive function.

The court is satisfied that Greig is mentally impaired and unfit to stand trial. The next step in the process is for the Court to enquire into Greig’s involvement in the offence under s 10 of the CP(MIP) Act.

Orders