R v Church - [2019] NZHC 2543

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI 2018-070-3998

[2019] NZHC 2543

THE QUEEN

v

WILLIAM CHURCH

Hearing: 7 October 2019

Appearances:

R W Jenson for the Crown R M Adams for Mr Church

Judgment:

7 October 2019

ORAL JUDGMENT OF JAGOSE J

Solicitors/Counsel:
Pollett Legal Limited, Tauranga Adams Hesketh, Tauranga

R v CHURCH [2019] NZHC 2543 [7 October 2019]

[1] My judgment of 12 July 2019 recorded, in terms of s 8A of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003, Mr Church was unfit to stand trial on a charge of murdering Michael Steven Church on 22 September 2018 at Papamoa.1

[2] Under ss 8A(5) and 10, I now must inquire into Mr Church’s involvement in the offence. The latter section requires me to decide if I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, the evidence against Mr Church is sufficient to establish he caused Michael Steven Church’s death, such being the act forming the basis of the offence with which Mr Church is charged.2 For those purposes, I may consider any formal statements filed under s 85 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, any oral evidence taken in accordance with an order under s 92 of that Act, and any other evidence submitted by the prosecutor or by Mr Church.3

[3] The Crown filed 29 formal statements, each of which I have read, and additional transcript and photographic evidence. The statements include evidence from:

(a)Kilak Kesha, a forensic pathologist working at Auckland City Hospital, who made a post mortem examination of the body of a man identified as Wayne Michael Church. Dr Kesha found four stab wounds on the body: two to the head, and one each to the neck and back. All significantly penetrated the body, and gave rise to associated haemorrhages. Dr Kesha’s expert opinion was “death was caused by multiple stab wounds”;

(b)the deceased’s 8-year-old granddaughter, who saw William “chopping a big orange on the outside and Koro was doing the dishes and … he, William sneaked up to him and stabbed him in the throat. … And then he died”. The girl originally said she was told that by her grandfather, who she named as “Wayne”, when she came out of her room to find him lying bleeding on the kitchen floor with a knife in his throat, but also explained she had been told not to talk about what had happened;

1      R v Church [2019] NZHC 1642 at [10].
2      Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003, s 10(2).
3      Section 10(3).

(c)the deceased’s 5-year-old son, who saw William ‘chop’ his father “with a little, sharp knife … it was chopping an orange and him just killed my Dad”; and

(d)the arresting officer, who Mr Church asked “Did you find the knife?”.

[4] I am satisfied from the whole of that material, on the balance of probabilities, the evidence against Mr Church is sufficient to establish he caused Michael Steven…

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 Church

Details

AGLC: R v Church [2019] NZHC 2543
Case: [2019] NZHC 2543
Decision Date: 7 October 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Judge Jagose presided over the case of the Queen versus William Church. The dispute centred on Mr Church’s fitness to stand trial for the murder of his father, Michael Steven Church, which occurred on 22 September 2018. The court had to determine whether Mr Church was fit to stand trial and, if not, to decide if the evidence was sufficient to establish he committed the murder.

The legal issues the court addressed included whether Mr Church was unfit to stand trial due to mental impairment and, if so, whether the evidence was sufficient to establish his guilt. The court considered various pieces of evidence, including statements from a forensic pathologist, witnesses who saw the incident, and admissions made by Mr Church during his interview with authorities. The court had to weigh this evidence to determine if Mr Church was unfit to stand trial and, if not, to assess the sufficiency of the evidence against him.

Judge Jagose concluded that Mr Church was unfit to stand trial due to his mental impairment. However, the court found that the evidence was sufficient to establish that Mr Church caused his father's death. The court considered the medical reports and the evidence from witnesses, including admissions by Mr Church, to reach this conclusion. Based on the health assessors’ updated reports and the circumstances of the case, Judge Jagose ordered that Mr Church be detained in a hospital as a special patient under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992. This decision aimed to protect the public from Mr Church while providing the necessary treatment and oversight for his rehabilitation.

Orders