R v Griffiths [2024] NSWDC 419

District Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Griffiths [2024] NSWDC 419 Hearing dates: 06 September 2024 Date of orders: 13 September 2024 Decision date: 13 September 2024 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Fitzsimmons SC DCJ Decision: The expert evidence of Dr Hayley Cullen and Professor Kristen Pammer is inadmissible. Catchwords: CRIME – pretrial determination – drive manner dangerous causing death – expert evidence – inattentional or change blindness – s 135 considerations – probative value – substantially outweighed by prejudicial effect Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995, ss 79, 108C, 135 Cases Cited: BQ v The King [2024] HCA 29 IMM v The Queen (2016) 257 CLR 300 Jiminez v the Queen (1992) 173 CLR 572, 579; [1992] HCA 14 Lang v The Queen [2023] HCA 29 McBride v The Queen (1966) 115 CLR 44 Smith v Aircraft Maintenance Service Australia (AMSA) Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 264 TL v King [2022] HCA 35 Category: Procedural rulings Parties: Rex Samuel Griffiths Representation: Counsel: Ms N Keay (Crown) Mr P Kondich (Accused)

Solicitors: Director of Public Prosecutions NSW (DPP) (Crown) Lambert Legal (Accused) File Number(s): 2022/00187273 Publication restriction: Not to be published until completion of trial

Judgment 1. The accused is charged, by one count on an indictment, that: 1. On 27 June 2022, at Wollongong in the State of New South Wales, did drive a vehicle, namely, a Premier Illawarra bus registration MO895, when it was involved in an impact occasioning the death of Danuta Kozak, and at the time of impact Samuel Griffiths was driving the vehicle in a manner dangerous to other persons. 1. The accused has pleaded not guilty, and the matter is listed for trial at Wollongong District Court commencing 14 October 2024. 2. On 26 June 2024, the Court delivered judgment as to the relevance of two expert reports upon which the accused relies. 3. The judgment refers to the one charge, the Crown case, the facts in issue and the expert evidence. The Court determined that the evidence was relevant although other issues pertaining to their admissibility were to be determined. It is appropriate to restate the Crown case and facts in issue as recorded in the earlier judgment.