R v Armstrong - [2014] NZHC 3150

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2013-092-2073 [2014] NZHC 3150

THE QUEEN

v

BYRON ARMSTRONG

Hearing: 10 December 2014

Appearances:

B R Northwood for Crown
R M Mansfield for Defendant

Judgment:

10 December 2014

(ORAL) JUDGMENT OF LANG J [as to finding of insanity]

R v ARMSTRONG [2014] NZHC 3150 [10 December 2014]

[1] Mr Byron Armstrong faces a charge of murder. I have now been asked to record a finding under s 20(1) of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 (the Act) that Mr Armstrong is not guilty of the charge on account of his insanity.

Background

[2] The background facts giving rise to the charge are not in dispute. They are

contained in a summary of facts prepared for the purpose of today’s hearing.

[3] This records that at about 10 pm on the evening of Friday 15 February 2013, Mr Armstrong left his home carrying a large kitchen knife. He went to the address of his victim, who had been his friend since school days. Mr Armstrong approached the front door of the property, and smashed a glass panel to gain entry into the house.

[4] The victim confronted Mr Armstrong near the entrance to the address, and the two men became involved in a wrestling match. Mr Armstrong then used the kitchen knife to repeatedly stab the victim in the neck. One of the stab wounds entered the victim’s throat and went right through his neck. The victim was pronounced dead by ambulance staff, who were called to the address.

[5] After leaving the address, Mr Armstrong returned to his home. He did not alert the ambulance or other emergency services as to what had happened to his friend. He then attempted to take his own life by cutting his wrists and his stomach. He then got into his motor vehicle and drove at speed into a lamp standard before colliding with the deck of a residential property. These actions led to the charge of murder.

The law

[6] The law of insanity in New Zealand is governed by s 23 of the Crimes Act

1961, which relevantly provides as follows:

23 Insanity

(1) Every one shall be presumed to be sane at the time of doing or omitting any act until the contrary is proved.

(2) No person shall be convicted of an offence by reason of an act done or omitted by him when labouring under natural imbecility or disease of the mind to such an extent as to render him incapable—

(a) Of understanding the nature and quality of the act or omission;
or

(b) Of knowing that the act or omission was morally wrong, having regard to the commonly accepted standards of right and wrong.

(3) Insanity before or after the time when he did or omitted the act, and insane delusions, though only partial, may be evidence that the offender was, at the time when he did or omitted the act, in such a condition of…

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 R v Armstrong

Details

AGLC: R v Armstrong [2014] NZHC 3150
Case: [2014] NZHC 3150
Decision Date: 10 December 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand considered a case involving Byron Armstrong, who was charged with murder. Armstrong was found to be legally insane at the time of the crime, as determined by two forensic psychiatrists. The primary legal issue was whether Armstrong's schizophrenia rendered him incapable of understanding the nature and quality of his act or knowing that it was morally wrong. Both psychiatrists agreed that Armstrong was legally insane under section 23 of the Crimes Act 1961. The Court concluded that Armstrong genuinely believed he was killing a demon and not his friend, thus satisfying the first limb of section 23. Both psychiatrists and the Court agreed that Armstrong was incapable of knowing that his act was morally wrong, satisfying the second limb of section 23. Consequently, the Court found Armstrong not guilty of murder on account of his insanity and ordered his detention as a special patient under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992.

Orders