R v Griffiths [2018] NSWSC 1116

R v Griffiths [2018] NSWSC 1116

The representations in Exhibit Voir Dire 6 were admissible because the request for a false alibi was capable of being accepted by the jury as an admission and as post-offending conduct showing consciousness of guilt, was relevant to the real issue of whether impairment justified reduction of responsibility, and any risk of misuse could be addressed by directions. The representations in Exhibit Voir Dire 7 were excluded because the accused's statement that he was not having a psychotic episode had limited probative value on the true issue of substantial impairment, while there was a real risk the jury would misuse it as an admission that he was not suffering from a relevant abnormality of...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution for Murder; Voir Dire Evidence Ruling / After Arraignment and Jury Empanelment, Before Openings; Admissibility Ruling on Representations in Witness Statements
Outcome
Representations contained in Exhibit Voir Dire 7 excluded; evidence in Exhibit Voir Dire 6 admitted.
Legal Topics
['voir Dire' 'admissibility of Admissions' 'post Offending Conduct' 'consciousness of Guilt' 'substantial Impairment by Abnormality of Mind' 'unfair Prejudice' 'probative Value']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['voir Dire' 'admissibility of Admissions' 'post Offending Conduct' 'consciousness of Guilt' 'substantial Impairment by Abnormality of Mind' 'unfair Prejudice' 'probative Value']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Prosecution for Murder; Voir Dire Evidence Ruling / After Arraignment and Jury Empanelment, Before Openings; Admissibility Ruling on Representations in Witness Statements

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether representations attributed to the accused in Exhibit Voir Dire 6 were admissible as admissions or post-offending conduct betraying consciousness of guilt.' 'Whether representations attributed to the accused in Exhibit Voir Dire 7, including the statement that he was not having a psychotic episode, should be excluded because the danger of unfair prejudice outweighed probative value.' "Whether the evidence was relevant to the jury's assessment of substantial impairment under s 23A Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)."]

Ratio Decidendi

The representations in Exhibit Voir Dire 6 were admissible because the request for a false alibi was capable of being accepted by the jury as an admission and as post-offending conduct showing consciousness of guilt, was relevant to the real issue of whether impairment justified reduction of responsibility, and any risk of misuse could be addressed by directions. The representations in Exhibit Voir Dire 7 were excluded because the accused's statement that he was not having a psychotic episode had limited probative value on the true issue of substantial impairment, while there was a real risk the jury would misuse it as an admission that he was not suffering from a relevant abnormality of...

Court Disposition

Representations contained in Exhibit Voir Dire 7 excluded; evidence in Exhibit Voir Dire 6 admitted.

Orders

  • ['I exclude the representations contained in Exhibit Voir Dire 7.' 'I permit Exhibit Voir Dire 6 to go to the jury in the form in which it appears in Exhibit Voir Dire 6.']