R v Chandler
[2021] NZHC 1470
•21 June 2021
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. He lit the petrol causing the victim to catch fire. The victim ran out of the car and moved to a clear area of the driveway. As she moved to the driveway the defendant poured further petrol onto her causing the flames to increase. He then went back inside the house. The victim was on the edge of the driveway trying to put the fire out that was engulfing her. She lay on the driveway. She then crawled to the grass verge that separated her driveway from the neighbouring driveway at 50 May Road. Nearby neighbours were alerted to the victim’s plight and came to assist her. They poured water on her and discharged a fire extinguisher on the car.
[9] After the flames had been extinguished, although she was severely burned, the victim managed to stand in the driveway of 50 May Road. At that stage Mr Chandler came out of the house at 52 May Road again and came towards the victim holding a knife in his hand. Although the victim moved away in an effort to escape him Mr Chandler reached her, held her by the hair, and slashed her throat a number of times with the knife. An elderly neighbour tried to intervene but the defendant did not stop. Mr Chandler then pushed the victim onto the bank where she lay motionless. By the time the emergency services arrived at the scene a short time later the victim was dead.
1 R v M [2014] NZHC 605 at [14].
[10] Having regard to the witness statements prepared by the Police as to the circumstances of the killing, particularly the statements of the eyewitnesses who saw the incident and having viewed the neighbour’s CCTV footage which captured the incident, I am satisfied beyond any doubt that Mr Chandler killed the victim.
[11] Further, the circumstances of the killing would normally leave no doubt as to murderous intent.
[12] The Court is then required to consider whether, despite that Mr Chandler is not guilty by reason of insanity. Section 23(2) of the Crimes Act 1961 provides:
(2)No person shall be convicted of an offence by reason of an act done or omitted by him … when labouring under natural imbecility or disease of the mind to such an extent as to render him … incapable—
(a)of understanding the nature and quality of the act or omission; or
(b)of knowing that the act or omission was morally wrong, having regard to the commonly accepted standards of right and wrong.
[13] The Court has received reports concerning Mr Chandler’s mental state at the time of the killing from two psychiatrists, Dr Ian Goodwin and Dr Jeremy Skipworth, who have interviewed Mr Chandler on a number of occasions. Both are highly qualified and experienced consultant psychiatrists. Both prepared formal reports for the Court – Dr Skipworth on 11 April 2021, and Dr Goodwin on 19 May 2021 and both gave further evidence this morning.
[14] The reports disclose in summary, Mr Chandler is a 30 year old man originally from the Waikato. He has a history of schizophrenia originally diagnosed during an admission to the Mason Clinic from prison on an earlier occasion between August and October 2015. After his arrest in this case Mr Chandler was transferred from Mount Eden Correctional Facility to the Kauri Unit of the Mason Clinic on 17 July 2020 pursuant to s 45 of the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992. He has remained an in-patient in that Unit with a diagnosis of schizophrenia since that time.
[15] When recently admitted in relation to this offending Mr Chandler was notably extremely paranoid and displaying significant hypervigilance and irritability. Although treatment has resulted in an improvement in his mental state he continues to express delusional ideas and to experience auditory hallucinations.
[16] Mr Chandler has a lengthy psychiatric history. He was admitted to the Henry Bennett Centre in Hamilton with suicidal ideation in December 2009. In 2011 and 2012 Mr Chandler had a number of contacts with Community Alcohol and Drug Services as part of sentences or conditions of parole before he was admitted to the Mason Clinic in August 2015 while serving a custodial sentence for aggravated robbery and assault with intent to rob. At that time he was exhibiting symptoms of schizophrenia, including a catatonic state. Prior to the admission in 2015 Mr Chandler had assaulted two other prisoners with no apparent provocation. Although released from prison into supported accommodation in May 2019 his mental state deteriorated through March and April 2020.
[17] In the opinion of Dr Goodwin, Mr Chandler suffers from schizophrenia and also qualifies for a diagnosis of methamphetamine abuse at or around the time of the offending. He suffers from disorders of perception and volition as well as delusions. Schizophrenia is generally accepted as a disease of the mind in terms of s 23 of the Crimes Act. After spending time with Mr Chandler and discussing the facts of the incident, Dr Goodwin is of the opinion that Mr Chandler understands the nature and quality of his actions at the time. However, Mr Chandler provides a consistent history of experiencing auditory hallucinations commenting on his actions and giving him commands from early 2020 until the killing. He believed the victim was out to get him or was trying to control him. He believed at times she was a vampire or a witch. Dr Goodwin considers Mr Chandler’s description of the victim appears to have been spontaneous and influenced by his belief about the victim over a number of months enhanced by auditory hallucinations. Mr Chandler reports he was told to act as he did.
[18] In Dr Goodwin’s opinion leading up to the killing Mr Chandler was experiencing symptoms of psychosis. Between January and late April 2020 his psychosis appears to have gradually worsened. He was noted by the victim and also Ms Pakuria to be worsening over the two months prior to the killing. In undertaking
the offending he appears to have been driven by paranoid delusions he developed about the victim over a number of months. Dr Goodwin is of the opinion that Mr Chandler’s mental state at the time of the offending was such he was suffering from a disease of the mind that rendered him incapable of knowing his actions were morally wrong. For those reasons Dr Goodwin is of the opinion that a defence of insanity is available.
[19] Dr Skipworth comes to the same conclusion. He notes Mr Chandler repeatedly told him that he was hearing voices through the television giving him commands telling him to do this or that. Dr Skipworth confirmed Dr Goodwin’s diagnosis of schizophrenia. The symptoms experienced by Mr Chandler have included auditory hallucinations, delusional beliefs of a persecutory and referential nature and catatonic symptoms. In his opinion the Court is likely to accept Mr Chandler has a disease of the mind.
[20] Dr Skipworth is also of the view that, while Mr Chandler may have understood the nature and quality of his actions, albeit he was responding to an overwhelming psychosis at the time of the alleged offending, at the relevant time he was however overwhelmed by commanding, auditory hallucinations so the defence of insanity is available.
[21] Both doctors consider the consumption of methamphetamine and perhaps other drugs in the relevant time period up to the incident would have exacerbated his psychotic symptoms, but both confirm that nevertheless he was suffering from an acute episode of schizophrenic illness at the material time. Methamphetamine is likely to have contributed to his relapse.
[22] The conclusion of the two experienced psychiatrists is consistent with a well- established history of mental disturbance of schizophrenia.
[23] The experts are satisfied that Mr Chandler’s explanation for his actions has not been manufactured to assist his position. He has recently been under constant observation. Dr Skipworth had some concerns at the extent of the answers Mr
Chandler had provided him at a recent interview but considers those to be exaggerations which do not affect his underlying conclusion which remains the same.
[24] Having had the opportunity to read their reports in full and having heard their evidence this morning I am satisfied on the basis of the expert medical evidence that at the time of the incident, while Mr Chandler may have understood the consequences of his actions, he was nevertheless unable to understand, or know that his actions were morally wrong having regard to the commonly accepted standards of right and wrong. Because of the auditory hallucinations, which were a product of the disease of the mind, he was incapable of understanding the moral rightness or otherwise of what he was doing.
[25] Mr Chandler’s manner and actions on the morning he killed the victim are also inconsistent with the suggestion he understood his actions were morally wrong. He can be observed to act calmly and dispassionately while killing the victim and then collecting a bag and calmly leaving the property.
[26] As the Court of Appeal observed in R v Smith,2 the killing in this case is inexplicable on any rational basis and leads inevitably to the conclusion Mr Chandler was incapable of forming the necessary rational moral judgment in relation to his actions.
[27] I conclude, in terms of s 20(2) of the CPMIP that Mr Chandler was insane at the time of the killing and I make that finding accordingly. Although Mr Chandler killed the victim he is not guilty by reason of insanity.
Disposition
[28] That then leads to the issue of disposition. The Court has found that Mr Chandler is not guilty by reason of insanity. As a result, s 23 of the CPMIP is engaged. That requires the Court to make inquiries to determine the most suitable method of dealing with Mr Chandler under s 24 or s 25 of the CPMIP. If Mr Chandler is to be
2 R v Smith (1995) 12 CRNZ 616 (CA) at 623.
detained as a special patient, the Court must have at least one report from a health assessor who is a psychiatrist to support that.
[29] As discussed with counsel, in this case, given the material before the Court I do not consider there is a need to adjourn this disposition hearing to a later date and I consider the Court can deal with the matter this morning.
[30] Both experts have been available this morning. They gave evidence in relation to the insanity finding itself and neither counsel wish to hear further from those experts on the issue of disposition. Both dealt with the issue of disposition in their reports for the Court. In the circumstances I do not consider that s 23 requires this Court to adjourn for a separate disposition hearing at a later date. What is required is that the Court must be satisfied that the relevant health professionals are in a position to make an informed recommendation on disposition.
[31] As I have noted in both their reports Drs Goodwin and Skipworth also considered and addressed the issue of disposition. Dr Skipworth in particular has gone into some detail on the issue of disposition in his report.
[32] Both Dr Goodwin and Dr Skipworth recommend Mr Chandler be detained as a special patient under s 24(2)(a) of the CPMIP.
[33] In M (CA819/2011) v R the Court of Appeal noted that, when conducting a disposition hearing the Court must consider all relevant circumstances of the case.3 The Court is not a rubber stamp. The Court must consider whether an order under s 24(2) is necessary in the interests of the public. The standard of necessity sets a high threshold. In this context there is a need to consider the protection of the public from further offending by the offender. The longer term public interest, and one the offender obviously shares, is to ensure that the offender is managed and treated in a manner best calculated to achieve the goals of rehabilitation and reintegration.
3 M (CA819/2011) v R [2012] NZCA 142.
[34] The Court must take into account both the immediate and long-term risks the defendant poses as well as the need to comprehensively manage and treat the issues that he presents.
[35] In Mr Chandler’s case his previous history is relevant. He has a criminal history spanning 12 years some of which involves previous violent offending, including assaults, breaches of protection order, and aggravated robbery. That suggests he presents a heightened risk to the public.
[36] In relation to Mr Chandler’s personal circumstances his schizophrenia seems to remain resistant to treatment although there have been recent improvements in response to the treatment. But despite treatment in the Mason Clinic for over 12 months he continues to display symptoms and signs of ongoing psychosis. That psychosis has been exhibited since the diagnosis in 2015.
[37] The present tragic incident occurred while Mr Chandler was unmedicated having failed to take his treatment for a period from mid-2019 until 1 May 2020. That indicates an inability on his part to manage his mental illness by adherence to a medication regime. That is of particular concern when considered with his history of past offending.
[38] The extreme violence involved in the killing of the victim in this case also illustrates a very high need for the public to be protected. As Dr Skipworth observed, the gravity of the offending provides strong justification for the public to be provided with the highest level of protection against the risk of future offending.
[39] Having considered the further aspects of the reports from Dr Goodwin and Dr Skipworth, having regard to the circumstances of Mr Chandler’s history, and the circumstances of this offending the Court is satisfied it is necessary in the interests of the public that Mr Chandler be detained under s 24(2)(a). Any lesser response would not adequately address the risk Mr Chandler poses or the needs that he has. I note that is not opposed by Ms Hughes on his behalf.
[40] There will be an order that Mr Chandler is to be detained in a hospital as a special patient under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992.
Venning J