R v Buchanan - [2023] NZHC 1881

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF DEFENDANT UNTIL THE DISPOSITION HEARING – SEE [63].

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA AHURIRI ROHE

CRI-2023-041-76

[2023] NZHC 1881

THE KING

v

TIMOTHY DAVID BUCHANAN

Hearing: 18 July 2023

Counsel:

S B Manning and B L McKenzie for the Crown M J Phelps for the Defendant

Judgment:

19 July 2023

JUDGMENT OF GWYN J

(Reasons judgment: fitness to stand trial; insanity)

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Napier

R v BUCHANAN [2023] NZHC 1881 [19 July 2023]

[1] On 18 July 2023 I issued an oral results judgment, recording findings that Mr Buchanan had a mental impairment but was fit to stand trial; that the act with which he was charged was proven, but that I was satisfied that Mr Buchanan was insane at the time of the commission of the offence. I found Mr Buchanan not criminally responsible on account of insanity and acquitted him of the charge of murder. I now set out my reasons.

Introduction

[2] The defendant, Timothy David Buchanan, faces one charge of murder. The charge is that on 14 January 2023 he fatally assaulted the victim, Colin Blithe, by repeatedly placing him in a chokehold until he stopped breathing.

[3] On 24 February 2023 the Court ordered that two reports be provided under s 38 of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 (Act) to assess the defendant’s fitness to stand trial, and whether a defence of insanity is available to him.

[4] In addition to the two reports sought by the Court, and now received from Dr Laurenti and Dr Young, the Crown commissioned a third report from Dr Jeremy Skipworth and the defence obtained an additional report from Dr Gordan Lehany.

[5]All four report writers agree in their conclusions that:

(a)The defendant is fit to stand trial; and

(b)The defendant has a defence of insanity available to him.

Background

[6] In late 2008 Mr Buchanan was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, having been admitted to the Hastings Psychiatric Unit for one month.

[7] Between February 2009 and August 2013 he was readmitted for relapses of paranoid schizophrenia. From 2009, Mr Buchanan was made subject to a community treatment order, which became an indefinite order in 2014.

[8] Mr Buchanan’s psychiatric history is comprehensively outlined in the psychiatric reports available to the Court, particularly the report of Dr Greg Young.

[9] In summary, Mr Buchanan was experiencing almost constant auditory hallucinations throughout 2022 and was not taking his medication.

[10] Prior to the events of 14 January 2023, Mr Buchanan had assaulted a work colleague in October 2022 and, in December 2022 he had threatened and then assaulted a random stranger. Both events were likely psychotically motivated.

[11] Mr Buchanan lived in a boarding house. Mr Blithe was the property manager at the boarding house. In the lead-up to 14 January 2023 there had been tensions between Mr Buchanan, the other residents and Mr Blithe.

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 1881
Case: [2023] NZHC 1881
Decision Date: 19 July 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Gwyn J delivered a judgment acquitting Timothy David Buchanan of the charge of murder on the basis of insanity. The court determined that while Mr Buchanan had committed the act, he was not criminally responsible due to his mental state at the time of the offence. The key issues before the court were whether Mr Buchanan was fit to stand trial and whether he had a defence of insanity available to him. Gwyn J found that Mr Buchanan had a mental impairment, specifically paranoid schizophrenia, but was nonetheless fit to stand trial. The court accepted the unanimous expert opinion that Mr Buchanan was fit to stand trial, despite his ongoing psychotic symptoms. Regarding the defence of insanity, the court found that Mr Buchanan was incapable of knowing that his actions were morally wrong due to his mental state, satisfying the criteria for insanity under the Crimes Act. Consequently, the court acquitted Mr Buchanan of the murder charge, ordering further inquiries into his mental health and remanding him to a secure facility pending the outcome of those inquiries. The court also maintained an interim order for the suppression of Mr Buchanan's name and identifying details until the disposition hearing. Additionally, the court dismissed two other charges against Mr Buchanan due to the lack of evidence from the Crown.

Orders