R v Aleni

[2012] NZHC 1165

FINAL ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION IN THE MEDIA OF ANY PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN OF THE ACCUSED.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

CRI 2011-005-483 [2012] NZHC 1165

THE QUEEN

v

TIMOTHY TOO ALENI

Hearing:         28 May 2012

Counsel:         C E R Power for Crown

C D Savage for Accused

Judgment:      29 May 2012

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF GENDALL J

[1]      Mr Aleni is charged with one count of murder and, through his counsel, has pleaded not guilty on the basis that at the time of the alleged offending he was suffering from a disease of the mind so that the defence of insanity applies under s 23 of the Crimes Act 1961.

[2]      The prosecution has agreed that the only reasonable verdict available is not guilty by reason of insanity.

[3]      I have today heard from both counsel and received their joint memorandum and in addition heard from two psychiatrists, Dr J Jacques and Dr S Du Fresne, who

R v ALENI HC DUN CRI 2011-005-483 [29 May 2012]

supplied reports as to their professional opinion and answered questions from the

Court.

[4]      Pursuant to s 20 of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act

2003 before a Judge may find a defendant not guilty on account of insanity, the

Court must be satisfied:

(a)      The prosecution has proved the actus reus of the charge (that is the conduct which makes up the charge) from which the intent component of the charge could be inferred from the conduct on the presumption that the accused was sane at the time of the conduct.

(b)If so, whether the Court is satisfied on the basis of expert evidence that the accused was insane at the time of committing the offence.

(c)      If so, then the Court must consider making an as to how Mr Aleni is to be dealt with.

Conduct giving rise to the charges

[5]      This is contained in an agreed statement of facts submitted by both counsel. It is not necessary for the Court to traverse these in any extensive detail.

[6]      During the early part of 2010 the accused’s family was concerned about him because of his delusional beliefs and agitated state.   He was hospitalised and prescribed anti-psychotic medication.  He was discharged to a psychiatric ward on

22 February 2011.  On 3 October 2011 the accused repeatedly stabbed his wife in the family home causing injuries which led to her death.   No issue of self defence or provocation arose.  He would undoubtedly have been convicted of murder but for the defence of insanity.

[7]      The two psychiatrists are agreed in their assessment of the accused that he suffers from paranoid schizophrenia, in his case characterised by abnormal false perceptions  or  hallucinations  and   abnormal,   unshakeable  false  beliefs  being

delusions.  Whilst he understood the nature of the act of killing his wife he did so under florid delusional thinking and did not know that this action was morally wrong at the time of the offence.  Dr Jacques expresses the view that Mr Aleni was insane within the meaning of the Crimes Act 1961 at the time of the alleged offence.

[8]      That opinion is shared by Dr Du Fresne, a consultant psychiatrist at Ashburn

Clinic.  She says that it is her:

Professional opinion that Mr Aleni was, at the time of alleged offending, suffering from a mental illness, most likely paranoid schizophrenia, and had delusional beliefs that men would come to the house and take his wife away as well as his and his family’s belongings and that in the context of those beliefs, and auditory hallucinations which he believed to be real and truthful telling him to kill his wife, he did not know that his action in attacking her was morally wrong.   I would therefore concur with Dr Jacques that at the time of the alleged offending Mr Aleni was legally insane as that term is defined in the Crimes Act 1961.

[9]      I have accepted the views of the experts and I am satisfied that the necessary criteria under s 23 of the Crimes Act 1961 are met.  I find Mr Aleni not guilty on account of insanity.

Disposition

[10]     It is clear that Mr Aleni poses a significant risk, if not to himself, certainly to others.  The psychiatrists are of the view that the appropriate disposition of the case would be for detention as a special patient.  His illness has not been easy to treat and his own insight into the need for compliance with medication is not well established. The degree of his mental disorder is of such a degree as to render him a significant danger to others.

[11]     Accordingly under s 24(2)(a) the defendant is to be detained in a hospital as a special patient under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992.

[12]     I make final the interim order of Chisholm J that there be no publication in the media of any photograph taken of Mr Aleni.  In all other respects no restriction

on publication of the proceedings exists.

J W Gendall

Solicitors:

Wilkinson Adams, Dunedin for Crown
Public Defence Service, Dunedin for Accused