R v Chandler - [2021] NZHC 1470

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2020-004-003296

[2021] NZHC 1470

THE QUEEN

v

DAMIEN CHARLES CHANDLER

Hearing: 21 June 20021

Appearances:

B Dickey and D Dow for Crown L Hughes for Defendant

Judgment:

21 June 2021

ORAL JUDGMENT OF VENNING J

Solicitors: Meredith Connell, Auckland Counsel: L Hughes, Auckland

R v CHANDLER [2021] NZHC 1470 [21 June 2021]

[1] Damien Charles Chandler is charged that on 1 May 2020 he murdered Tania Hadley.

[2] Through counsel Mr Chandler has pleaded not guilty on the grounds of insanity (s 23, Crimes Act 1961).

[3] Section 20(2) of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 (CPMIP) applies:

20 Finding of insanity

…

(2)Before or at a trial, the Judge must record a finding that the defendant is not guilty on account of his or her insanity if—

(a)the defendant indicates that he or she intends to raise the defence of insanity; and

(b)the prosecution agrees that the only reasonable verdict is not guilty on account of insanity; and

(c)the Judge is satisfied, on the basis of expert evidence, that the defendant was insane within the meaning of section 23 of the Crimes Act 1961 at the time of the commission of the offence.

[4]Counsel have filed a joint memorandum which confirms that:

(a)the defendant does intend to raise the defence of insanity; and

(b)the Crown agrees that the only reasonable verdict is not guilty on account of insanity.

[5] The issue therefore is whether the Court is satisfied on the basis of expert evidence, that Mr Chandler was insane within the meaning of s 23 of the Crimes Act 1961 at the time of the commission of the offence.

At the time of the commission of the offence

[6] The use of the words “at the time of the commission of the offence” in s 20(2)(c) of the CPMIP mean that an offence of insanity may only be considered once

the prohibited conduct has been proved against the defendant in circumstances where mens rea could be inferred from the conduct.1

[7] The summary of facts, which is based on the evidential statements of witnesses and a CCTV record disclose that Mr Chandler and the victim, Tania Hadley, had previously been in a relationship. It had been amicable and there was no previous history of tension or conflict.

[8] At around 7.20 am on 1 May 2020 the victim and Mr Chandler were in the kitchen of the dwellinghouse at 52 May Road with Mr Chandler’s other partner Ms Pakuria. The victim was getting ready to go to work. She walked out of the home and got into the driver’s seat of her car which was parked in the driveway, close to the door of the house. Mr Chandler went to the laundry of the house, took a jerry can containing petrol, walked to the victim’s vehicle, opened the driver’s door and doused her in petrol from the jerry can.…

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 Chandler

Details

AGLC: R v Chandler [2021] NZHC 1470
Case: [2021] NZHC 1470
Decision Date: 21 June 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Damien Charles Chandler stands accused of murdering Tania Hadley on 1 May 2020. Chandler has pleaded not guilty, raising the defence of insanity under section 23 of the Crimes Act 1961. The court must determine whether Chandler was insane at the time of the offence, based on expert evidence. The prosecution and defence have agreed that if the court finds Chandler was insane, the only reasonable verdict is not guilty by reason of insanity.

The court reviewed the evidence, including witness statements and CCTV footage, and concluded that Chandler did kill Hadley. The key issue was whether Chandler was insane at the time of the offence. The court heard evidence from two psychiatrists, Dr Ian Goodwin and Dr Jeremy Skipworth, who diagnosed Chandler with schizophrenia and concluded he was incapable of understanding the moral wrongness of his actions due to his mental state. Both psychiatrists found that while Chandler may have understood the nature of his actions, he was unable to comprehend that they were morally wrong due to his delusions and hallucinations. The court accepted their findings and concluded that Chandler was insane at the time of the killing.

The court proceeded to determine the appropriate disposition for Chandler under the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003. Both psychiatrists recommended that Chandler be detained as a special patient. The court considered Chandler's history of violence, resistance to treatment, and the gravity of the offence, and concluded that detention was necessary in the public interest. The court ordered that Chandler be detained as a special patient under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992.

Orders