R v Boyle - [2021] NZHC 1276

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WAIHŌPAI ROHE

CRI-2019-025-002088

[2021] NZHC 1276

THE QUEEN

v

JOSEPH KEVIN BOYLE

Hearing: 31 May 2021 and 1 June 2021

Appearances:

R Donnelly for the Crown

J M Ablett-Kerr QC and N M Laws for the Defendant

Judgment:

1 June 2021

ORAL JUDGMENT OF NATION J

[1] Joseph Kevin Boyle is charged that on 8 December 2019 he murdered James Aaron Clark. The defence and the prosecution have asked the Court to record a finding under s 20(1) of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 that Mr Boyle is not guilty of the charge on account of his insanity.

[2] After a hearing on 28 April 2021, Mander J, in a judgment of 6 May 2021, held Mr Boyle is fit to stand trial.

[3] For the Court to return a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity, the Court must first be satisfied that the defendant carried out the acts necessary for the crime of murder to be committed, in this case, that Mr Boyle killed his step-brother, James Clark.

R v BOYLE [2021] NZHC 1276 [1 June 2021]

[4] The prosecution evidence was put before the Court through a number of witness statements. The defence did not require any of the witnesses to be available for cross-examination. The evidence from the witnesses was not challenged in any way.

[5] Mr Donnelly for the Crown helpfully highlighted relevant aspects of that evidence.

[6] On 8 December 2019, Mr Boyle was 30 years of age. He was sharing his home with his step-brother James Clark who was aged 19 and his brother Jamie Boyle. James Clark sent a Facebook message to a friend at 8.31 pm. At 8.39 pm, Mr Boyle made a 111 call to the Police. They asked him what was going on at the address. Mr Boyle said “he’s cut himself”. He told the Police to come and help, that it was serious, and that someone was on the ground bleeding.

[7] When the Police arrived at the house, they said “Police, come out”. Mr Boyle came out of the house. A Police officer described him as having “really wide eyes and looked as though he was looking straight through us. He appeared really calm.” Mr Boyle told the Police that the person was dead and he knew this because his head was off. Mr Boyle told the Police there was a hammer and knife in the house and the only person in the house was his step-brother James Clark. After Mr Boyle had been given his Bill of Rights advice, a constable placed handcuffs on Mr Boyle’s wrists. The constable asked Mr Boyle if he was alright. Mr Boyle replied “yeah I’m good thanks” in a really perky tone that the constable thought was really weird. Mr Boyle had blood on his shoes and on his pants. The constable described Mr Boyle’s demeanour throughout as very calm and…

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 Boyle

Details

AGLC: R v Boyle [2021] NZHC 1276
Case: [2021] NZHC 1276
Decision Date: 1 June 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Joseph Kevin Boyle was charged with murdering his step-brother, James Aaron Clark. Both the prosecution and the defence sought a finding under s 20(1) of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 that Mr Boyle was not guilty of the charge on account of his insanity. The central issue before the court was whether Mr Boyle was suffering from a disease of the mind, as defined in s 23 of the Crimes Act 1961, at the time he committed the murder. The court had to determine if he was incapable of understanding the nature and quality of his acts or knowing that they were morally wrong.

The court found that Mr Boyle was indeed suffering from a disease of the mind, specifically schizophrenia or a schizoaffective disorder of the bipolar sub-type, at the time of the offence. The expert evidence from psychiatrists and a psychologist established that Mr Boyle was experiencing acute psychotic symptoms, including auditory hallucinations commanding him to harm others, which directly influenced his actions. The court accepted that Mr Boyle was incapable of knowing that his acts were morally wrong due to his mental illness. As a result, the court recorded a finding that Mr Boyle was not guilty of the charge of murder by reason of his insanity.

The court then considered the appropriate consequential orders under ss 23 to 28 of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act. After carefully reviewing the evidence, the court concluded that Mr Boyle's detention as a special patient was necessary to protect the public, his family, and himself. The court made an order under s 24(1)(c) of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 that Mr Boyle be detained in a hospital as a special patient under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992.

Orders