R v Griffiths (No 2) [2024] NSWDC 426

R v Griffiths (No 2) [2024] NSWDC 426

The evidence of Professors Pammer and Dr Cullen on inattentional and change blindness is relevant because it may rationally affect the assessment of whether the accused was operating under an honest and reasonable mistake, which is in issue. Other admissibility issues remain undetermined.

Parties
Prosecution: Rex; Accused: Samuel Griffiths
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Pre Trial Ruling
Outcome
Partial admissibility ruling; question of relevance determined in favour of admissibility. Full admissibility to be determined later.
Legal Topics
Dangerous Driving Causing Death, Admissibility of Expert Evidence, Honest and Reasonable Mistake of Fact, Inattentional Blindness, Change Blindness
Criminal Law Dangerous Driving Causing Death Admissibility of Expert Evidence Honest and Reasonable Mistake of Fact Inattentional Blindness Change Blindness

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Prosecution

Samuel Griffiths

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Pre Trial Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the expert evidence is relevant to the facts in issue, particularly the accused's claimed honest and reasonable mistake
  2. 2 Whether the expert evidence on inattentional blindness and change blindness is admissible for the purpose of supporting the accused's case

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence of Professors Pammer and Dr Cullen on inattentional and change blindness is relevant because it may rationally affect the assessment of whether the accused was operating under an honest and reasonable mistake, which is in issue. Other admissibility issues remain undetermined.

Court Disposition

Partial admissibility ruling; question of relevance determined in favour of admissibility. Full admissibility to be determined later.

Orders

  • The evidence of the experts Professor Kristen Pammer and Dr Hayley Cullen is relevant.
  • Further issues as to the admissibility otherwise to be determined.