Griffith v R [1937] HCA 25

Griffith v R [1937] HCA 25

The evidence of a plan or system was relevant and admissible for the purpose of identification, and evidence after the date of the last offence charged did not affect its admissibility. Criticism of the identification evidence lost its weight in light of the admissibility of the plan/system evidence.

Parties
Applicant: John Thomas Griffith; Respondent: The King
Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Special Leave to Appeal From the Court of Criminal Appeal of Victoria
Outcome
Special leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Identification, Similar Fact Evidence, Plan or System Evidence, Mistaken Identity
Criminal Law Evidence Admissibility of Evidence Identification Similar Fact Evidence Plan or System Evidence Mistaken Identity

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 6 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Thomas Griffith

Applicant

The King

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Special Leave to Appeal From the Court of Criminal Appeal of Victoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether evidence of a plan or system is admissible to prove identity in rape charges
  2. 2 Whether evidence of actions after the last charged offence is admissible
  3. 3 Validity of identification methods used

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence of a plan or system was relevant and admissible for the purpose of identification, and evidence after the date of the last offence charged did not affect its admissibility. Criticism of the identification evidence lost its weight in light of the admissibility of the plan/system evidence.

Court Disposition

Special leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • Application for special leave to appeal refused