R v Griffiths (No 2) [2024] NSWDC 426

District Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Griffiths (No 2) [2024] NSWDC 426 Hearing dates: 20 June 2024 Date of orders: 26 June 2024 Decision date: 26 June 2024 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Fitzsimmons SC DCJ Decision: The evidence of the experts Professor Kristen Pammer and Dr Hayley Cullen is relevant. Further issues as to the admissibility otherwise to be determined. Catchwords: CRIME – pre-trial issues – dangerous driving causing death – admissibility (relevance) of expert reports - honest and reasonable mistake of fact - inattentional blindness - change blindness Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900, s 52A Evidence Act 1995, s 55 Cases Cited: Adam v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 96; 123 A Crim R 280; [2001] HCA 57 CTM v The Queen (2008) 236 CLR 440; [2008] HCA 25 Jiminez v the Queen (1992) 173 CLR 572, 579; [1992] HCA 14 McBride v The Queen (1966) 115 CLR 44 R v SG [2017] NSWCCA 202 Rummukainen v The Queen (2021) 97 MVR 134; [2021] NSWCCA 188 Category: Procedural rulings Parties: Rex Samuel Griffiths Representation: Counsel: Mr Kondich (Accused)

Solicitors: Director of Public Prosecutions NSW (DPP) (Crown) Lambert Legal (Accused) File Number(s): 2022/00187273

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. The accused seeks to rely on the expert reports of Dr Hayley Cullen and Professor Kristen Pammer. The Crown objects to both reports being admitted on several grounds including relevance, expertise and probative value/prejudicial effect. 3. It was considered appropriate that the Court initially rule on the threshold issue of relevance. If it is determined that the evidence is relevant the Crown will then consider its position as to the further grounds of objection, including whether the experts should be called on the voir dire to determine their admissibility otherwise.