Hayes v The King - [2024] NZHC 568

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2023-409-211

[2024] NZHC 568

BETWEEN
TERRENCE JOHN HAYES

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 7 March 2024

Appearances:

C C Gullidge for Appellant W J S Mohammed for Crown

Judgment:

15 March 2024

JUDGMENT OF EATON J

(appeal against special patient order)

This judgment was delivered by me on …….. at ……… pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

HAYES v R [2024] NZHC 568 [15 March 2024]

Introduction

[1] On 23 March 2023, Terrence Hayes was found unfit to stand trial on eight charges.1 Those charges were:

(a)intimidation x2;2

(b)possession of an offensive weapon x2;3

(c)wilful damage;4

(d)unlawfully in an enclosed yard;5

(e)resisting a police officer;6 and

(f)assault with a weapon.7

[2] On 4 August 2023, Judge Savage made a finding under s 10 of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 (CPMIP) that Mr Hayes was involved in the alleged offending. At a disposition hearing on 8 September 2023, Judge Savage imposed a special patient order (SPO) pursuant to s 24(2)(a) of the CPMIP.8

[3] Mr Hayes appeals that decision. He contends the appropriate disposition was an inpatient compulsory treatment order (CTO) pursuant to s 25(1)(a) of the CPMIP and s 30 of the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992 (MHCAT).

1      Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired) Persons Act 2003, ss 7 and 8A [CPMIP].
2      Summary Offences Act 1981, s 21(1)(e); maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment or a
$2,000 fine.
3      Crimes Act 1961, s 202A(4)(a); maximum penalty three years’ imprisonment.
4      Summary Offences Act, s 11(1)(a); maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment or a $2,000 fine.
5      Section 29(1)(b); maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment or a $2,000 fine.
6      Section 23(a); maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment or a $2,000 fine.
7      Crimes Act, s 202C(1)(a); maximum penalty five years’ imprisonment.
8      R v Hayes [2023] NZDC 20320.

Factual background

[4] Mr Hayes faces two sets of charges, the first arising on 23 June 2022 and the second on 25 June 2022.

Possession of an offensive weapon and intimidation

[5] On 23 June 2022, Mr Hayes was in Kaiapoi. He was carrying a crowbar and knife and approached an acquaintance sitting on a bench. Mr Hayes began yelling at the acquaintance and raised the crowbar accusing him of going into and messing up his house. Mr Hayes swung the crowbar at the acquaintance, who backed away, and caught the bottom of his jacket, ripping it.

Remaining charges

[6] On the evening of 25 June 2022, a couple and their small child were parked in their car in Kaiapoi near a bus stop. Mr Hayes approached the vehicle from the bus stop and yelling and waving a crowbar at them. The family drove off and phoned police.

[7] On arrival, the police confronted Mr Hayes who by that time was holding a hunting style knife as well as the crowbar. Mr Hayes refused to comply…

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 Hayes v The King

Details

AGLC: Hayes v The King [2024] NZHC 568
Case: [2024] NZHC 568
Decision Date: 15 March 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Terrence John Hayes appeals a special patient order (SPO) imposed by Judge Savage under the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003. Hayes argues that an inpatient compulsory treatment order (CTO) under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992 should have been imposed instead. The appeal was filed out of time due to counsel and clinician unavailability, but the Crown does not oppose leave on the merits. The court considered whether the appeal should be dismissed, varied, or cancelled, but determined that the court had sufficient information for a disposition determination.

The court found that an SPO was not necessary, as an inpatient CTO would adequately address the risk to the public and allow for appropriate treatment and rehabilitation. The seriousness of Hayes' offending, his extensive criminal history, and his mental health issues, including poor insight and partial response to treatment, justified detention. However, the court found that the judge's concerns about the responsibilities of clinicians and family members were not relevant to the statutory necessity test.

The court substituted the SPO with an inpatient CTO, noting that Hayes has shown improvement under current treatment and that assertive community follow-up will be provided upon his release. The appeal is allowed, and the SPO is set aside and replaced with an inpatient CTO. The application for an extension of time is granted.

Orders