R v Church - [2019] NZHC 1642

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 1642

THE QUEEN

v

WILLIAM CHURCH

Hearing: 27 June 2019 (Heard at Tauranga)

Appearances:

R W Jenson for the Crown

R M Adams and D J Sheely for Mr Church

Judgment:

12 July 2019

JUDGMENT OF JAGOSE J

[Fitness to stand trial]

This judgment is delivered by me on 12 July 2019 at 5.00 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

.....................................................
Registrar / Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Pollett Legal Limited, Tauranga Adams Hesketh, Tauranga

R v CHURCH [2019] NZHC 1642 [12 July 2019]

[1] William Church is charged with the murder of Michael Steven Church on 22 September 2018 at Papamoa. While obtaining psychiatric advice for a prospective defence of insanity, Mr Church’s fitness to stand trial was queried. That is for my determination now.1

Background

[2] At a hearing convened before me on 27 June 2019 in Tauranga to determine Mr Church’s fitness, three health assessors gave evidence in support of their documented assessments Mr Church suffers treatment-resistant schizophrenia. They also gave evidence, in their assessment, he could not effectively participate in any trial, and would in any event be constrained in such participation by intellectual disability.2

Assessment of intellectual disability?

[3] Possibly encouraged by the last, at the conclusion of the hearing, Crown counsel, Richard Jenson, sought an order a psychologist assess the extent of any intellectual disability had by Mr Church, to assist me in determining his fitness,3 and suggested I may wish to appoint a communications assistant to enable him to understand the proceeding.4 For Mr Church, Rachael Adams responded such assessment or assistance “likely lack[ed] utility”, given the gravity of Mr Church’s mental impairment.

[4] ‘Intellectual disability’ has a specific meaning in the present context,5 as set out in s 7 of the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003. As indicated by that title, use of the phrase in the Criminal Procedure (Mentally

1      Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003, s 8A.
2      The three were psychiatrists David Chaplow (speaking to his assessments of 3 February 2019, 24 March 2019, and 8 June 2019), Justin Barry-Walsh (19 March 2019), and Peter Dean (29 January 2019 and 16 June 2019). All agreed to abide by the code of conduct for expert witnesses contained in Schedule 4 of the High Court Rules. Given counsel’s 25 June 2019 joint memorandum’s advice “[t]he health assessors agree that the defendant is unfit to stand trial”, I directed each psychiatrist’s evidence in chief be given in the ordinary way but, at conclusion of the last, the three be convened for the balance of their evidence to be given concurrently: Evidence Act 2006, s 84(1); and Commerce Commission v Cards NZ Ltd HC Auckland CIV-2006-485-2353, 27 July 2009.
3      Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003, s 38(1)(a).
4      Evidence Act 2006, s 80(1)(a).
5      Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003, s 4…

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 1642
Case: [2019] NZHC 1642
Decision Date: 12 July 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In R v Church, the defendant William Church was charged with the murder of Michael Steven Church on 22 September 2018 at Papamoa. The issue before the High Court of New Zealand was whether Mr Church was fit to stand trial. Mr Church's fitness to stand trial was questioned while obtaining psychiatric advice for a prospective defence of insanity.

The central legal issue was whether Mr Church was mentally impaired to the extent that he was unfit to stand trial, as defined in section 4 of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003. This definition includes an inability to conduct a defence or instruct counsel, to plead, to understand the proceedings, or to communicate with counsel due to mental impairment.

The Court accepted that Mr Church suffered from treatment-resistant schizophrenia, a mental impairment. Based on the psychiatrists' evidence, the Court found that Mr Church was more likely than not unable to conduct a defence or instruct counsel due to his mental impairment. He had a child's comprehension and capability, struggled to understand the consequences of his actions, and was unable to communicate effectively with counsel. The Court concluded that Mr Church was unfit to stand trial, and the trial was vacated.

The Court directed the parties to file memoranda proposing steps and a timetable for further inquiries, and to raise any other matters requiring determination.

Orders