AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
1
Supreme Court 7 November 2016

R v Griffiths

[2016] NSWSC 1571

Homicide
CRIMINAL LAW FITNESS TO BE TRIED JUDGE ALONE

Citation: R v Griffiths [2016] NSWSC 1571
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 7 November 2016
Judge(s): Mathews AJ

Background

The accused faced a charge of murder arising from an assault on 27 September 2014 in Tweed Heads. The Crown alleged that the accused approached the deceased, grabbed him by the head, pushed his thumbs into his eyes, and then returned after walking away to deliver a powerful elbow strike to the face. The deceased fell, struck his head on the ground, and died in hospital on 30 September 2014 from blunt force head injuries.

The accused was arrested on 13 October 2014 and admitted to the assault, describing his martial arts training and characterising the blow as a "very powerful hit." He remained in custody from that date.

A question arose as to whether the accused was mentally fit to stand trial. Two forensic psychiatrists assessed him, and the matter came before the court for a fitness inquiry under the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW).

  • Whether the accused met the criteria for fitness to stand trial as established in R v Presser (1958) VR 45
  • Whether the accused's mental state prevented him from meaningfully participating in his trial, instructing counsel, or conducting a defence

Decision

The court applied the seven Presser criteria, which require an accused to be able to: understand the charge; plead to it and exercise the right to challenge jurors; understand the nature of the proceedings; follow the evidence and understand its effect; make a defence; instruct counsel; and decide on a defence. These criteria represent the minimum standard for meaningful participation in a criminal trial.

Dr Gerald Chew, assessing the accused at the defence's request, diagnosed a primary psychotic disorder consistent with schizophrenia. He found the accused held fixed delusions about a conspiracy involving lawyers and the justice system, including a belief that the deceased was not in fact dead and that evidence against him had been fabricated. Dr Chew concluded these delusions prevented the accused from instructing a lawyer or participating meaningfully in a trial.

Professor David Greenberg, assessing the accused on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions, reached broadly the same conclusion. He found the accused could understand the charge and plead to it, satisfying the first two Presser criteria. However, the accused's thought disorder and delusional beliefs meant he could not appreciate the effect of evidence, communicate his version of events to counsel, decide on a defence, or give evidence coherently if required.

With both psychiatrists in agreement and both parties conceding the point, the court found the accused unfit to stand trial.

Orders Made

  • A finding that the accused was unfit to be tried for murder
  • Referral of the matter to the Mental Health Review Tribunal under s 14 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990
  • The accused remanded in custody pending further court orders, pursuant to s 14(b)(iii) of the Act
  • Direction to the Supreme Court Registry to provide the Tribunal with a copy of the judgment, exhibits, the Crown Case Statement, and the parties' written submissions

Key Takeaways

  • The Supreme Court applied the Presser criteria as the established framework for determining fitness to stand trial in NSW, confirming that an accused must meet all seven criteria to be found fit.
  • Partial capacity is not sufficient: the court found the accused could satisfy some criteria (understanding the charge and pleading) but could not meet others (following the evidence, instructing counsel, deciding on a defence), and unfitness was therefore established.
  • Delusional beliefs about a conspiracy involving the legal system, including beliefs that evidence has been fabricated and that legal representatives cannot be trusted, can directly undermine an accused's ability to instruct counsel and mount a defence.
  • Where expert psychiatric evidence is uncontested and both parties agree on the finding, the court's role in a fitness inquiry is to receive that evidence and make the appropriate statutory finding and orders.
  • Under s 14 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990, a finding of unfitness triggers a mandatory referral to the Mental Health Review Tribunal, with the accused remanded in custody pending further orders.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW), ss 14, 14(b)(iii)

Cases
- R v Presser (1958) VR 45