Legal Research
Cases
R v Corkran

R v Corkran

Case [2023] NZHC 1602 26 June 2023

Jurisdiction

Limitation Periods

Presumption of Innocence

Unconscionable Conduct

Fiduciary Duty

Mens Rea & Intention

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CRI-2021-083-1688

[2023] NZHC 1602

THE KING

v

JOHN RICHARD JAMES CORKRAN

Hearing: 19–20 June 2023

Counsel:

M Wilkinson-Smith and H R Hancock for Crown R Lithgow KC and A Jeremich for Defendant

Judgment:

26 June 2023

Reissued:

28 June 2023

JUDGMENT OF ISAC J

[Application for stay of proceedings]

Introduction

[1] Mr Corkran is 91 years old. He awaits trial in August 2023 on eight charges of cruelty to children.1 The offending is alleged to have occurred between 49 and 45 years ago at Lake Alice Hospital, where Mr Corkran was a psychiatric charge nurse. The Crown contends that during the relevant period Mr Corkran administered paraldehyde

1 Mr Corkran is charged under s 195 of the Crimes Act 1969 (as it stood in the 1970s, not the current version). It provided:

Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years who, having the custody, control, or charge of any child under the age of 16 years, wilfully ill-treats or neglects the child, or wilfully causes or permits the child to be ill-treated, in a manner likely to cause him unnecessary suffering, actual bodily harm, injury to health, or any mental disorder or disability.

R v CORKRAN [2023] NZHC 1602 [28 June 2023]

injections to children and young people as punishment in circumstances giving rise to criminal responsibility.

[2]Mr Corkran made pre-trial applications for:

(a)a determination that the prosecution is barred by s 124 of the Mental Health Act 1969, which conferred an immunity from prosecution on health workers in certain circumstances;

(b)a stay of the proceeding on the basis that Mr Corkran’s right to a fair trial has been compromised;

(c)if the proceeding is not stayed, a determination that Mr Corkran is no longer fit to stand trial; and

(d)a discharge under s 147 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.

[3] A five-day pre-trial hearing was originally scheduled to determine these applications. However, after concluding evidence on Mr Corkran’s current mental and physical condition on the second day of the hearing, both counsel invited me to deliver a ruling on his application for a stay. They did so because if I were minded to grant the application the balance of Mr Corkran’s pre-trial applications would fall away.

[4] After adjourning to consider the evidence and submissions, I stayed the prosecution and delivered a results judgment. The balance of this judgment sets out my reasons for doing so. Given the interest of the complainants and members of the public in the reasons for my decision I have delivered judgment as quickly as possible.

Background

[5] Mr Corkran was employed at Lake Alice as a psychiatric nurse in 1960. He became a charge nurse in 1968.

[6] In 1972, Lake Alice opened a child and adolescent unit. From 1974, Mr Corkran became one of the charge nurses responsible for the unit.

[7] The essence of the Crown case is…

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 Corkran

Details

AGLC: R v Corkran [2023] NZHC 1602
Case: [2023] NZHC 1602
Decision Date: 26 June 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Corkran involves 91-year-old John Richard James Corkran, who faces trial for eight charges of cruelty to children, stemming from incidents that allegedly occurred between 1974 and 1977 when he was a psychiatric charge nurse at Lake Alice Hospital. The Crown alleges that during this period, Mr Corkran administered paraldehyde injections to children as a form of punishment, which caused significant pain and other adverse effects. Mr Corkran made several pre-trial applications, including a stay of proceedings on the basis that his right to a fair trial had been compromised due to his advanced age, physical and mental frailty, and the lengthy delay in bringing the charges. After hearing evidence on Mr Corkran's current mental and physical condition, the court stayed the prosecution.

The court considered the legal principles governing the stay of criminal proceedings, focusing on the right to a fair trial and the ability of the defendant to effectively participate in their trial. The court held that a stay is warranted when a defendant's mental or physical health prevents them from adequately defending themselves, and that delay may be a discrete factor warranting a stay. In this case, the court found that Mr Corkran's advanced age, physical and mental impairments, and the significant delay in bringing the charges made it unlikely that he could receive a fair trial.

The court also considered Mr Corkran's argument that he was entitled to an immunity from prosecution under section 124 of the Mental Health Act 1969. The court tentatively concluded that the immunity may apply to Mr Corkran, but noted that it was unnecessary to determine this issue as the prosecution had been stayed on other grounds.

In summary, the charges against Mr Corkran have been stayed due to his advanced age, physical and mental frailty, and the significant delay in bringing the charges, which compromise his right to a fair trial. The court also considered, albeit tentatively, that Mr Corkran may be entitled to an immunity from prosecution under section 124 of the Mental Health Act 1969.

Orders