Britz v R - [2013] NZSC 38

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY S 139 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 17/2013
[2013] NZSC 38

JACOB ADRIAAN BRITZ

THE QUEEN

Court: William Young, Chambers and Glazebrook JJ

Counsel: A J Holland for Applicant
M J Lillico for Crown

Judgment: 19 April 2013

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

REASONS

This case came before the Court of Appeal in an unusual way. On 22 October 2009 Jacob Britz, the applicant, pleaded guilty in the Hamilton District Court to charges of sexual offending involving two victims, NK and JV. Bruce Hesketh was his counsel at that time. Before Mr Britz was sentenced, he applied to vacate his pleas, but later that application was withdrawn. By this time, however, Mr Britz faced further charges with respect to a third complainant, FM. He pleaded not guilty to those charges, but in October 2011 following a trial was found guilty.
Mr Britz came up for sentence on all matters on 30 November 2011. Woodhouse J adjourned the sentencing and ordered reports from two health assessors under s 88 of the Sentencing Act 2002. Dr Ian Goodwin, a psychiatrist, and Ms Sabine Visser, a psychologist, in their reports expressed the opinion that Mr Britz had been unfit to stand trial when he entered his guilty pleas in respect of NK and JV and when he stood trial in respect of FM. The Crown later instructed Professor Graham Mellsop, a psychiatrist, who concluded Mr Britz had been fit to stand trial.
Given these divergent views, counsel and the Judge agreed on a strategy for resolving the conflict in the expert opinion. It was agreed Mr Britz would appeal against his convictions. In the meantime, the Judge would defer sentencing.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against conviction.[1]
[1] Britz v R [2012] NZCA 606.
Mr Britz, through his counsel, Mr Holland, seeks to raise four grounds of appeal. In so far as Mr Britz challenges the “weight” the Court of Appeal accorded some experts’ opinions over others, there is no point of principle justifying a further appeal.
There are, however, two matters Mr Holland raises which we have considered in depth. The first is an argument that the Court of Appeal adopted a “high threshold” in relation to post-trial fitness arguments, in reliance, it is said, on an earlier decision of the Court of Appeal, SR v R.[2] We think, with respect, that the proposed argument misses the point the Court of Appeal was making and which had also been made in two English Court of Appeal decisions cited in SR.[3] What both Courts of Appeal were emphasising was simply the practical problem of reconstructing later an accused’s mental state at trial in circumstances where no one qualified had examined the accused at the relevant time and no one involved in the case at that time (lawyers and the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Britz v R

Details

AGLC: Britz v R [2013] NZSC 38
Case: [2013] NZSC 38
Decision Date: 19 April 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Britz v R involved Jacob Adriaan Britz, who appealed against his convictions for sexual offences against three victims. The Supreme Court of New Zealand heard the case, with Justices William Young, Chambers, and Glazebrook presiding. Britz, represented by counsel A J Holland, argued that he was unfit to stand trial due to intellectual disability, which led him to challenge his convictions and seek leave to appeal. The Crown, represented by M J Lillico, defended the conviction and sentencing. The Court dismissed Britz's application for leave to appeal, affirming the earlier decision of the Court of Appeal.

The primary legal issues before the Supreme Court were whether Britz's intellectual disability rendered his trial unfair, and whether there was a procedural error in not assessing Britz's fitness to stand trial under the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003. Britz's counsel argued that the Court of Appeal had applied an unduly high threshold in considering post-trial fitness arguments and that Britz's rights under the 2003 Act were violated. The Court examined these arguments in detail, considering whether the Court of Appeal's approach to Britz's fitness to stand trial and plead was correct and whether there was a miscarriage of justice that warranted further appeal.

The Court of Appeal had carefully reviewed the evidence regarding Britz's fitness to stand trial and concluded that he was fit to do so. The Supreme Court found no error in this assessment. It held that there was no point of general or public importance warranting a second appeal and that the Court of Appeal's conclusion that Britz was fit to stand trial was not erroneous. The Court also noted that the appeal was based on the occurrence of a miscarriage of justice, and it found that the Court of Appeal's thorough investigation into Britz's fitness to stand trial was adequate and fair. Therefore, the Court concluded that no substantial miscarriage of justice had occurred, and Britz's application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

In dismissing the application for leave to appeal, the Supreme Court confirmed the conviction and sentence of Jacob Adriaan Britz for the sexual offences against the three victims. The Court upheld the findings of the Court of Appeal that Britz was fit to stand trial and that no miscarriage of justice had occurred. The Supreme Court found no basis for further appeal, affirming the lower court's decision and maintaining the integrity of the judicial process in handling such sensitive cases.

Orders