R v Barlow

[2018] NZHC 1545

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2017-019-6582

[2018] NZHC 1545

THE QUEEN

v

ARANA TE RATA BARLOW

Hearing:	26 June 2018
Counsel:	R G Douch for Crown G Boot for Defendant
Judgment:	26 June 2018

ORAL JUDGMENT OF WHATA J

Solicitors:           Almao Douch, Hamilton

Gavin Boot Law, Hamilton

R v BARLOW [2018] NZHC 1545 [26 June 2018]

[1]    Mr Arana Barlow faces one charge of attempted murder. The background facts are as follows. At the time of the alleged offending, Mr Barlow had a two-year-old son and lived with his mother at a Thames address. The defendant’s mother is the victim in this matter. She has the custody of the defendant’s son. At about 4.00 pm on 6 October 2017, the defendant, Mr Barlow, was at his mother’s address in Thames. He entered the house and said to his mother, “I’m going to kill you”. At the time, he was holding a knife. Mr Barlow approached his mother and stabbed her six times with the knife. The victim received an eight centimetre puncture wound to her chest that pierced her lung. She has also received five other wounds to her neck area, tricep, bicep and wrist. Mr Barlow then placed his son in a car and left the address. An ambulance was called by a relative who found the victim and the police were notified.

[2]    There is no dispute that the event described above occurred. The defence now, however, raises an issue of insanity, supported by two independent expert psychiatric reports. I will come back to them later.

[3]    Mr Douch, for the Crown, accepts that there is a proper basis for a finding of insanity and agrees that the only reasonable verdict is not guilty on the account of insanity. That being the case and given the reports that I will come to, I am also satisfied that, for the purposes of s 20(2)(c), that the defendant was insane within the meaning of s 23 of the Crimes Act 1961 at the time of the commission of the offence.1

[4]    In terms of the independent psychiatric reports, I make the following observations. Dr Kadhem Majeed, having interviewed Mr Barlow and reviewed his medical history, made the following conclusions:

(a)Mr Barlow suffers from treatment resistant schizophrenia that is characterised by delusions, auditory hallucinations and disorder of cognition evidenced by the marked impairment of judgment that he presents with.

1      Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003, s 20(2)(c).

(b)Mr Barlow suffers from chronic paranoid schizophrenia which is accepted by the Court to qualify as a mental impairment within the meaning of this term in the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003.

(c)Mr Barlow’s account regarding the charge of attempts to murder revealed that the act of stabbing his mother was driven by delusions and auditory hallucinations. His account revealed that at the material time of the offending, he was incapable of giving due considerations to the moral aspect of the act of stabbing of his mother. Arana Barlow was incapable, due to the disease of mind that he suffered, of realising that stabbing his mother was morally wrong within the commonly accepted standards of right and wrong.

(d)Mr Barlow continues to present a significant risk to his safety and the safety of others and would therefore benefit from an extended period of psychiatric treatment and rehabilitation in a forensic psychiatric setting in hospital. A disposition under s 24(2)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act would ensure that public safety is protected and he receives the treatment that he needs.

[5]    Similarly, Dr Dean has reached a number of comparable conclusions, including:

(a)Arana was experiencing symptoms of psychosis prior to and subsequent to the alleged offending. He has chronic schizophrenia which is usually considered by the Courts to constitute a disease of the mind. In his view, this was active in influencing Mr Barlow’s behaviour at the material time of the alleged offending.

(b)Mr Barlow described a bizarre paranoid delusional belief. He believed his mother was harming his baby, he was contracting the New Zealand Army to protect his son and his son was in fact a robot. He believed he had trillions of dollars, he was being interfered with by the bank and

controlled money through satellites and the internet. He believed both his uncle and his mother told him to kill his mother in order to protect his son.

(c)He therefore agrees with the recommendations made for compulsory treatment, noting that Mr Barlow continues to have a delusional system that resulted in him stabbing his mother.

[6]    Given the foregoing diagnoses and the agreement of counsel, I therefore make an order pursuant to s 24(2)(a) that the defendant be detained in a hospital as a special patient under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992.2

[7]    For completeness, I record a finding of not guilty on the charge and I also note that I spoke to Mr Barlow directly and he confirmed that he understood what the finding of insanity meant for him, including that it may mean a lengthy, if not indeterminate, period of treatment.

2      Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003, s 24(2)(a).