R v Buchanan - [2023] NZHC 2373

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA AHURIRI ROHE

CRI-2023-041-76

[2023] NZHC 2373

THE KING

v

TIMOTHY DAVID BUCHANAN

Hearing: 29 August 2023

Counsel:

S B Manning for the Crown M J Phelps for the Defendant

Judgment:

29 August 2023

JUDGMENT OF GWYN J

(Disposition under s 24(2)(a) of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003)

Introduction

[1] On 14 January 2023 Timothy David Buchanan killed Colin Blithe. Mr Buchanan was charged with murder. The charge was that he fatally assaulted Mr Blithe, by repeatedly placing him in a chokehold until he stopped breathing.

[2] On 18 July 2023, having received expert reports from Drs Young, Skipworth, Laurenti and Lahani, addressing issues of fitness and insanity, I made the following findings:1

1 R v Buchanan [2023] NZHC 1871 [results judgment]; and R v Buchanan [2023] NZHC 1881 [reasons judgment].

R v BUCHANAN [2023] NZHC 2373 [29 August 2023]

(a)that Mr Buchanan had a mental impairment, but was fit to stand trial;2

(b)that the act with which Mr Buchanan was charged was proven, but that he was insane at the time of the commission of the offence;3 and

(c)Mr Buchanan was not criminally responsible on account of insanity and was acquitted of the charge of murder.4

[3] I remanded Mr Buchanan to a hospital or secure facility, pursuant to s 23(2)(b) of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 (Act) and directed that inquiries be made to determine the most suitable method of dealing with Mr Buchanan, under ss 24 or 25 of the Act.

[4] I have now received a report from Dr Greg Young, a consultant psychiatrist. His report is directed at assisting the Court to decide the most suitable way of proceeding.

Victim impact statements

[5] Before I come to consider possible orders, I want to mention the victim impact statements that we have heard read to the Court. Crown counsel applied pursuant to s 22 of the Victims’ Rights Act 2002, for leave for victim impact statements to be read by members of Mr Blithe’s family. Counsel for the defendant did not oppose the application. Statements for five family members were read. I have also received a statement from three other members of Mr Blithe’s family who did not wish to read their statement in public.

[6] There is no right for a victim to provide a statement at a disposition hearing, but the Court may do so in its inherent jurisdiction. I have granted leave for them to give their statements.

2      Reasons judgment, above n 1, at [32].
3      At [57] and [58].
4      At [58] and [59].

[7] It is important to record, however, that the victim impact statements cannot influence the decision the Court ought to make when considering mental health-related orders.5

[8] As I will discuss shortly, s 24 of the Act allows the Court to make an order when it is “necessary” in the interests of the public. The most pertinent…

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 Buchanan

Details

AGLC: R v Buchanan [2023] NZHC 2373
Case: [2023] NZHC 2373
Decision Date: 29 August 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Gwyn J presided over the case of R v Buchanan, where Timothy David Buchanan was acquitted of murder on the grounds of insanity. The court was required to decide the most suitable method for dealing with Buchanan under the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003. The legal issues revolved around the necessity of detaining Buchanan as a special patient under the Act, considering his mental condition, the gravity of the offence, and the risk of reoffending. The court had to weigh the immediate and long-term risks posed by Buchanan against the need for comprehensive management and treatment of his condition.

The court concluded that Buchanan's ongoing active symptoms of schizophrenia and his history of violent conduct warranted his detention as a special patient. Both Dr Greg Young and Dr Skipworth recommended this course of action, highlighting the need for intensive rehabilitation and the potential for violent behaviour if Buchanan's illness were to worsen. The court acknowledged the victim impact statements but emphasised that such statements could not influence the decision regarding mental health-related orders. The court found that detaining Buchanan as a special patient was necessary to protect public safety and to aid in his rehabilitation and reintegration. Consequently, Buchanan was to be detained in a hospital as a special patient under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992. Additionally, the previous order for name suppression was lifted as the threshold for extreme hardship had not been met.

In summary, the court ordered that Buchanan be detained in a hospital as a special patient and dismissed the charge of failure to answer Police bail. The court's decision was based on the necessity to protect the public from potential reoffending and to provide the appropriate treatment and management for Buchanan's mental condition.

Orders