Duval-Smith v The Queen - [2013] NZCA 492

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA81/2013
[2013] NZCA 492

BETWEEN	TIMOTHY DUVAL-SMITH Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	30 September 2013
Court:	O'Regan P, Panckhurst and MacKenzie JJ
Counsel:	M A Stevens for Appellant M J Grills for Respondent
Judgment:	16 October 2013 at 2 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal against conviction is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by O’Regan P)

Introduction

Mr Duval-Smith was convicted following a jury trial of one count of burglary, three counts of assault with a weapon and one count of intentional damage. The trial Judge, Judge Crosbie, sentenced him to imprisonment for two years and eight months.
The appellant largely accepted the Crown version of the events that happened on the night on which the offending occurred. His defence at trial was insanity.

Issues

The issues to be determined are framed by the two grounds of appeal, which are:
(a)that the trial Judge did not adequately direct the jury on the legal test for a verdict of not guilty on the grounds of insanity in terms of s 23(2)(b) of the Crimes Act 1961;
(b)that the trial Judge failed to give the jury an indication of the consequences of a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity, and that this has led to a miscarriage of justice.
The focus of the argument at the hearing of the appeal was on the first ground.

Factual background

The events leading to the charges involve the appellant and two other men entering the house of the victim in the early hours of the morning and subjecting the victim to threats and assaults. The background to these events was that the appellant believed that the victim owed him $3,000 arising from events that had happened in 1985, more than 25 years before the date of the assault. The three men woke the victim and he answered the door to them. They then forced their way into his house and during the next one–two hours the victim was assaulted with a weapon (he was hit over the head and on the legs with a wooden club or stick by the appellant), assaulted with a knife and a bottle by others involved in the events, and was also made to kneel for long periods and forced to drink alcohol and had alcohol poured on him. His house was trashed in his presence.
One of the three men pleaded guilty and was sentenced before the appellant’s trial. The appellant and the other co-accused were tried together.
As mentioned earlier, the appellant’s defence at trial was that of insanity. He did, however, take issue with some of the facts alleged by the Crown, and in particular asserted that the victim had voluntarily allowed the offenders to enter his house and that the assaults were not of the severity alleged by the Crown.

Insanity defence

Section 23(2) provides as follows:
(2)No person shall be convicted of an offence by reason of an act done or…

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 Duval-Smith v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Duval-Smith v The Queen [2013] NZCA 492
Case: [2013] NZCA 492
Decision Date: 16 October 2013 at 2 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, the case of Duval-Smith v The Queen CA81/2013 [2013] NZCA 492 was heard, involving Timothy Duval-Smith, the appellant, and The Queen, the respondent. Duval-Smith was convicted of burglary, assault with a weapon, and intentional damage, with the trial judge sentencing him to imprisonment for two years and eight months. Duval-Smith's defence at trial was insanity. The appeal against the conviction was dismissed.

The central issues for determination were whether the trial judge adequately directed the jury on the legal test for a verdict of not guilty on the grounds of insanity in terms of s 23(2)(b) of the Crimes Act 1961 and whether the trial judge failed to give the jury an indication of the consequences of a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. The focus of the argument at the hearing of the appeal was on the first ground. Duval-Smith's defence at trial was based on his history of bipolar affective disorder, which gave rise to manic and depressive episodes. Duval-Smith argued that during the time of the offending, he was in an elevated mood due to his bipolar disorder and believed that his actions were morally justified.

The Court concluded that the trial judge's direction to the jury on the legal test for insanity was correct and in line with the established case law. The Court found that the trial judge's summary of the expert evidence did not lead the jury away from the legal test. Moreover, the Court found no obligation for the trial judge to give the jury an indication of the consequences of a verdict of not guilty on the ground of insanity, and no error was made in this regard. As both grounds of appeal failed, the appeal was dismissed.

Orders