R v Griffiths [2024] NSWDC 419

R v Griffiths [2024] NSWDC 419

The expert evidence of Dr Hayley Cullen and Professor Kristen Pammer on inattentional and change blindness was held inadmissible as the presence of a pedestrian at a marked crossing was not unexpected, a necessary precondition for these blindness concepts; their opinions were speculative and lacked probative value directly relating to facts in issue, and any slight probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused under s 135 of the Evidence Act 1995.

Parties
Prosecution: Rex; Accused: Samuel Griffiths
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Pretrial Evidentiary Ruling
Outcome
Application to admit expert evidence refused
Legal Topics
Dangerous Driving Occasioning Death, Expert Evidence, Inattentional Blindness, Change Blindness, Admissibility of Evidence
Criminal Law Dangerous Driving Occasioning Death Expert Evidence Inattentional Blindness Change Blindness Admissibility of Evidence

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Prosecution

Samuel Griffiths

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Pretrial Evidentiary Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether expert evidence on inattentional or change blindness is admissible in determining the accused's claim of not seeing the pedestrian
  2. 2 Whether such evidence assists the jury on the issue of honest and reasonable mistake of fact
  3. 3 Whether the probative value of the expert evidence is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect under s 135 of the Evidence Act 1995

Ratio Decidendi

The expert evidence of Dr Hayley Cullen and Professor Kristen Pammer on inattentional and change blindness was held inadmissible as the presence of a pedestrian at a marked crossing was not unexpected, a necessary precondition for these blindness concepts; their opinions were speculative and lacked probative value directly relating to facts in issue, and any slight probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused under s 135 of the Evidence Act 1995.

Court Disposition

Application to admit expert evidence refused

Orders

  • The expert evidence of Dr Hayley Cullen and Professor Kristen Pammer is inadmissible.