R v Chand - [2012] NZHC 2745

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2011-044-6255

CRI-2011-044-7906 [2012] NZHC 2745

QUEEN

v

AKSHAY ANAND CHAND

Hearing: 17 October 2012

Counsel: S Moore SC and B Smith for Crown
M K Lowe for Mr Chand

Judgment: 17 October 2012

JUDGMENT OF WINKELMANN J

(1) Section 20 hearing Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act
2003 (the Act).

(2) Disposition hearing for purposes of s 23 hearing of the Act.

Meredith Connell, Auckland ben.smith@meredithconnell.co.nz
Simon.Moore@meredithconnell.co.nz

Mary-Anne Lowe, Auckland mk.lowe@xtra.co.nz

R V CHAND HC AK CRI-2011-044-6255 [17 October 2012]

[1] In September 2011 Mr Akshay Chand kidnapped Ms Christie Marceau, keeping her captive for some 35 minutes. During her ordeal he threatened her with a knife, threatened to stab her and he did this with intent to sexually violate her. For that offending he was arrested and remanded in custody. In October Mr Chand was released on bail. Although subject to a 24 hour curfew, on 7 November 2011 at
7.00 am he went to Christie’s home carrying a knife, he entered her home, chasing her as she attempted to escape him, and stabbed her to death.

[2] He was subsequently charged with the murder of Christie and was to stand trial this month. However, psychiatrists instructed both by the defence and the Crown have expressed the opinion that at the time Akshay Chand killed Christie Marceau, he had a disease of the mind which was so significant and pervasive that he did not know what he was doing was morally wrong. On that basis the Crown has agreed that the only reasonable verdict is not guilty on account of insanity.

[3] The agreement by the Crown has triggered the provisions of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003. By virtue of the provisions of this Act I am required to conduct a hearing to determine, on the basis of expert evidence, whether Mr Chand was insane within the meaning of s 23 of the Crimes Act 1961 at the time that he killed Christie Marceau. If I am satisfied of that, I am then required by that Act to determine the most suitable method of dealing with him.

[4] Mr Chand having pleaded guilty to the September 2011 offending, must also later be sentenced in respect of that offending, but I will attend to that at a later point in time.

[5] Accordingly, the purpose of today’s hearing is twofold. Firstly, to determine whether he was insane within the meaning of s 23 of the Crimes Act 1961 at the time he killed Christie, and secondly, if I am satisfied that he was, to make a decision as to how he is to be dealt with.

[6] The relevant factual background to the events the subject of this hearing are as follows. Mr Akshay Chand and Ms Christie Marceau knew each other at primary

school but lost contact after that. In September 2010 they encountered each other again when working at a supermarket local to their homes. They…

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 Chand

Details

AGLC: R v Chand [2012] NZHC 2745
Case: [2012] NZHC 2745
Decision Date: 17 October 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Akshay Anand Chand was charged with the murder of Christie Marceau. Chand had previously kidnapped Marceau and threatened her with a knife with intent to sexually violate her, for which he was arrested and remanded in custody. Chand was later released on bail but subsequently killed Marceau by stabbing her to death. Both defence and Crown psychiatrists opined that Chand was suffering from a disease of the mind at the time of the murder, rendering him incapable of knowing that his actions were morally wrong. The Crown agreed that the only reasonable verdict was not guilty on account of insanity. The court held a hearing under the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 to determine whether Chand was insane at the time of the murder and, if so, the most suitable method of dealing with him. The court found that Chand was suffering from a schizophrenic illness at the time of the murder and was therefore not criminally responsible. The court ordered that Chand be detained as a special patient under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992.

Orders