R v Eteuati - [2024] NZHC 1204

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2022-004-3430

[2024] NZHC 1204

THE KING

v

CHRISTIAN PETER ETEUATI

Hearing: 15 May 2024

Appearances:

M Harborow and R Gibbs for the Crown

J-A Kincade KC and R McCausland for the Defendant

Judgment:

15 May 2024

ORAL JUDGMENT OF GAULT J

(Disposition)

Solicitors / Counsel:
Mr M Harborow and Ms R Gibbs, Meredith Connell, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Auckland Ms J-A Kincade KC and Ms R McCausland, Barristers, Auckland

R v ETEUATI [2024] NZHC 1204 [15 May 2024]

[1] Mr Eteuati, you appear in Court today for a disposition hearing to determine whether your detention in a hospital or secure facility is necessary.

[2] This disposition hearing follows my finding on 8 February 2024 that on a charge of murder,1 it is proved that you stabbed Mr Tom Coombes causing his death, but that you are not criminally responsible on account of insanity.2 You were acquitted of the criminal offence, but that did not mean you could go free. I ordered that inquiries be made to determine the most suitable method of dealing with you.3 In the meantime, you have stayed at the Mason Clinic.

[3] At the outset, I acknowledge the presence of the Coombes family and close friends. As I said in February, this is a tragic case. I will refer to your victim impact next, but first I will explain what happened.

Mr Eteuati’s actions

[4] On Tuesday 24 May 2022 at about 6:06 pm, the victim, Tom Coombes – who you Mr Eteuati did not know – left the Auckland CBD by train departing from Britomart station. At about 6:32 pm, Tom arrived at the Baldwin Ave train station and left the train.

[5] Tom proceeded to walk towards his home address. As part of his normal routine, he listened to music through headphones while walking.

[6] At about 6:41 pm, Tom walked along New North Road and turned right onto Alberton Ave, Mount Albert. He proceeded to enter the Roy Clements Treeway, a scenic pathway that leads towards the Kerr-Taylor Park between Mt Albert and Sandringham.

[7] A raised wooden boardwalk, approximately one metre above the ground, runs through the pathway and is surrounded by weeds, shrubs, and trees. This boardwalk is approximately 900 metres long between the entrance on Alberton Ave, and

1      Crimes Act 1961, ss 167 and 172. Maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
2      R v Eteuati [2024] NZHC 117.
3      Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003, s 23.

Haverstock Road, Sandringham. Roy Clements Treeway has no lighting throughout the entirety of the walk and, at the time Tom walked through it, the entire distance of the walkway was dark.

[8] Between 6:41 pm and 6:55 pm, you Mr Eteuati were in and around the Roy Clements Treeway. You were armed with a large knife, approximately 26 centimetres in length, with a 14 centimetre blade.

[9] Tom walked approximately 250 metres…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Eteuati and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2024] NZHC 1204
Decision Date: 15 May 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, the case of R v Eteuati was heard for a disposition hearing to determine the appropriate method of handling Mr Eteuati's continued detention. Mr Eteuati had been found not criminally responsible for the murder of Tom Coombes due to insanity, and the court had ordered inquiries to ascertain the most suitable way to manage his case. The hearing aimed to decide whether Mr Eteuati should be detained in a hospital under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992 or if an alternative order should be made.

The primary legal issue the court needed to address was whether it was necessary in the public interest for Mr Eteuati to be detained as a special patient under the Mental Health Act. The court had to weigh the risk of future violent offending against the need for long-term treatment and rehabilitation. The decision hinged on the assessments of Mr Eteuati's mental health and the recommendations of health professionals, alongside the gravity of the offence committed.

Gault J carefully considered the reports from three health assessors, all of whom diagnosed Mr Eteuati with treatment-resistant schizophrenia and an antisocial personality disorder. Each report highlighted the high risk of future violence without proper treatment and the necessity for long-term oversight and management of Mr Eteuati's condition. The court determined that Mr Eteuati's detention as a special patient was necessary to protect the public and to ensure his proper treatment and eventual rehabilitation. The judge concluded that an alternative order would not sufficiently address the seriousness of the offence or the ongoing risk posed by Mr Eteuati.

The final order of the court was that Mr Christian Eteuati be detained in a hospital as a special patient under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992. This decision aimed to balance the need for public safety with the therapeutic needs of Mr Eteuati, ensuring that he receives the necessary treatment and supervision to mitigate the risk of future offending and facilitate his rehabilitation.

Orders