Griffiths v R [2014] NSWCCA 60

Griffiths v R [2014] NSWCCA 60

Leave was granted because Senior Constable Zitianellis' notes created uncertainty, but the appeal was dismissed because the Court's own assessment of the evidence showed it was amply open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant struck MZ with the bottle. The notes were informal and taken in haste, DZ was definite in his trial evidence, CW gave direct evidence implicating the applicant, MZ's evidence supported strong inferences against the applicant, and there was no trial evidence that Mr Littlewood struck MZ with a bottle or had a bottle at any relevant time.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 April 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction for Reckless Wounding Under Crimes Act 1900 (nsw), S 35(4) / Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal Against Conviction in the Court of Criminal Appeal; Sentence Appeal Not Pursued
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted, appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['reckless Wounding' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'leave to Appeal on a Question of Fact' 'identification Evidence' 'jury Verdict']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence'] ['reckless Wounding' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'leave to Appeal on a Question of Fact' 'identification Evidence' 'jury Verdict']

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 Appeal Against Conviction for Reckless Wounding Under Crimes Act 1900 (nsw), S 35(4) / Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal Against Conviction in the Court of Criminal Appeal; Sentence Appeal Not Pursued

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the guilty verdict for reckless wounding was unreasonable and could not be supported by the evidence.' 'Whether leave to appeal was required and should be granted under Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5(1)(b).' 'Whether the evidence allowed the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant, rather than Mr Littlewood, struck MZ with a bottle.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was granted because Senior Constable Zitianellis' notes created uncertainty, but the appeal was dismissed because the Court's own assessment of the evidence showed it was amply open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant struck MZ with the bottle. The notes were informal and taken in haste, DZ was definite in his trial evidence, CW gave direct evidence implicating the applicant, MZ's evidence supported strong inferences against the applicant, and there was no trial evidence that Mr Littlewood struck MZ with a bottle or had a bottle at any relevant time.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted, appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal dismissed.']