R v Eteuati
[2024] NZHC 117
•8 February 2024
NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF DEFENDANT PROHIBITED BY S 201 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011 UNTIL DISPOSITION. SEE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE
CRI-2022-004-3430
[2024] NZHC 117
THE KING v
CHRISTIAN PETER ETEUATI
Hearing: 7 February 2024 Appearances:
M Harborow and R Gibbs for the Crown
J-A Kincade KC and R McCausland for the Defendant
Judgment:
8 February 2024
JUDGMENT OF GAULT J
This judgment was delivered by me on 8 February 2024 at 4:30 pm.
Registrar/Deputy Registrar
……………………………………
R v ETEUATI [2024] NZHC 117 [8 February 2024]
[1] Mr Eteuati faces a charge of murder. His three-week jury trial is scheduled to commence next Monday, 12 February 2024.
[2] Following receipt of two psychiatrists’ reports in January 2024, I convened a hearing with oral evidence from the psychiatrists to address the issue of insanity for the purposes of s 20(2) of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 (CPMIP).
Alleged offending
[3]The Crown summary of facts relevantly states:
…
Mr Eteuati and Mr Coombes were not known to each other.
Circumstances
On Tuesday 24 May 2022 at about 6:06pm, Mr Coombes left the Auckland CBD via a train departing from Britomart train station. At about 6:32pm Mr Coombes arrived at Baldwin Ave train station and departed from the train.
Mr Coombes proceeded to walk towards his home address on Watea Road. As part of his normal routine, Mr Coombes listened to music through headphones whilst walking towards his home.
At about 6:41pm Mr Coombes walked along New North Road and turned right onto Alberton Ave, Mount Albert. He proceeded to enter the Roy Clements Treeway.
The Roy Clements Treeway is a scenic pathway that leads towards the Kerr- Taylor Park. The pathway is situated within the residential suburbs between Mount Albert and Sandringham.
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 Haverstock Road, Sandringham. Roy Clements Treeway has no lighting throughout the entirety of the walk, and at the time Mr Coombes walked through it, the entire distance of the walkway was dark.
Between 6:41pm and 6:55pm, Mr Eteuati was in and around the Roy Clements Treeway. Mr Eteuati was armed with a large knife, approximately 26 centimetres in length, with a 14 centimetre blade.
Mr Coombes walked approximately 250 metres along the boardwalk in a south easterly direction before he was confronted by Mr Eteuati.
Mr Eteuati unleashed a vicious, frenzied and unprovoked attack on Mr Coombes using the knife.
Mr Coombes endeavoured to defend himself by raising his arms. This was ineffective as Mr Eteuati overpowered him. He continued striking Mr Coombes with the knife.
Mr Eteuati caused 42 sharp force injuries to Mr Coombes, including injuries to his chest, neck, face and head. One of the stabs to Mr Coombes’ head penetrated his skull. The knife entered Mr Coombes’ brain. The attack caused significant blood loss to Mr Coombes.
At some point during the confrontation, Mr Coombes fell onto the boardwalk and then off it onto the ground. Mr Coombes finally came to rest underneath the boardwalk. He died there.
Mr Eteuati left the scene along the boardwalk in a south easterly direction towards his home address on Haverstock Road.
Around this time, two members of the public were walking along the boardwalk heading in a north-western direction towards Mr Eteuati. Due to the lack of lighting, the pair used a cell phone torch to navigate their way through the walkway.
Mr Eteuati heard these people, and to avoid being seen, he proceeded off the boardwalk. He was not seen by the members of the public. He then continued to make his way towards his home address.
…
Mr Eteuati, still carrying the knife and with Mr Coombes’ blood visible on him, returned to his home address. He barged into his younger brother’s room and showed him the knife. Mr Eteuati told his younger brother that the blood on him was a “person’s blood, human blood”.
Mr Eteuati changed his clothing and concealed the knife in the centre console of his mother’s vehicle, where he had been sleeping, before leaving the address.
Mr Eteuati then hid in the wastewater tunnel behind his home address. He was located by Police on the evening of Saturday 28 May 2022, four days after the attack.
Injuries
The pathologist made note of the following injuries:
•42 sharp force injuries (26 confirmed stab wounds and 16 incised wounds, some of which may have been stab wounds), focused on upper torso, neck and head area.
•Defensive injuries to the hands with the right little finger almost entirely severed.
•Three stab wounds and two incised wounds to the left side of the neck, and two stab wounds to the left shoulder, one of which ruptured the artery and jugular vein as well as injuring the large vessels on the left side of the neck causing a large amount of bleeding.
•A stab wound to the back of the neck which fractured the C7 vertebrae and injure the spinal cord.
•Both lungs punctured.
•Multiple stab wounds to the head perforating the skull and the brain.
•An incised wound to the face partially severing the nose, and multiple incised wounds which partially severed the right ear.
•The left upper arm was punctured all the way through. This was the deepest stab wound with a depth of 15cm.
Defendant’s comments
During the Police interview, Mr Eteuati denied responsibility for the attack.
…
Procedural background
[4] Following Mr Eteuati’s arrest, his irrational responses to questions and his conduct during the police interview were of concern to police. He was detained in the Mason Clinic for a psychiatric assessment and found by a psychiatrist, Dr Moyles, to be grossly psychotic. His counsel, Ms Kincade KC, was unable to obtain any sensible instructions from him.
[5] There followed a series of callover hearings at which Mr Eteuati’s mental health was reported to the Court. Despite the deferrals, the Court confirmed a three- week trial fixture to commence on 12 February 2024 should it be necessary.
[6] Following the preparation of reports under s 38 of CPMIP, on 17 August 2023 Davison J presided over a fitness hearing. On 31 August 2023, Davison J determined that Mr Eteuati was mentally impaired, suffering from a chronic schizoaffective disorder with psychotic symptoms and disorders of perception, delusions, cognition, and mood.1 He found that since around March 2023 Mr Eteuati’s condition had responded slowly but significantly to medication with a consequent improvement in
1 R v E [2023] NZHC 2410.
his mental health, but some symptoms nevertheless continued to persist. Davison J concluded that Mr Eteuati was fit to stand trial, specifically that he was fit to plead to the charge, able to adequately understand the nature or purpose or possible consequences of the proceedings and able to communicate adequately with his counsel for the purposes of mounting a defence to the charge. The decision recorded that were the defendant to decide to enter a plea of not guilty and deny responsibility for the fatal stabbing of Mr Coombes, then his ability to instruct his counsel and to participate at his trial in a substantive manner so as to offer an effective defence would need to be re-examined. The Judge noted that this was a most unlikely situation that need only be addressed should it arise.
[7] As indicated, in January 2024 the Court received reports in relation to a possible defence of insanity from two psychiatrists, Dr Pillai (whose report was ordered by the Court at the request of the Crown) and Dr Immelman (on behalf of Mr Eteuati).
[8] In relation to insanity, the two psychiatrist report writers were largely agreed. However, Mr Harborow for the Crown indicated that before the Crown could agree that insanity is the only reasonable verdict, he would need to address a few matters with the experts. He proposed that be done by way of pre-trial oral evidence. He anticipated that this evidence would result in the Crown agreeing that insanity is the only reasonable verdict such that the Judge alone insanity by agreed verdict process could follow instead of the jury trial. Ms Kincade noted that this was unorthodox but in the unusual circumstances of this case agreed it was to be preferred over proceeding with a jury trial and two weeks of other evidence before the experts address insanity.
[9]Mr Eteuati appeared at the hearing by VMR with a communication assistant,
Ms Wright.2
[10] Ms Kincade confirmed at the hearing that there is no issue as to Mr Eteuati’s fitness.
2 See my minute of 7 February 2024.
Applicable law
Insanity
[11]Section 23 of the Crimes Act 1961 provides:
23 Insanity
(1)Every one shall be presumed to be sane at the time of doing or omitting any act until the contrary is proved.
(2)No person shall be convicted of an offence by reason of an act done or omitted by him or her when labouring under natural imbecility or disease of the mind to such an extent as to render him or her 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.
(3)Insanity before or after the time when he or she did or omitted the act, and insane delusions, though only partial, may be evidence that the offender was, at the time when he or she did or omitted the act, in such a condition of mind as to render him or her irresponsible for the act or omission.
…
[12] So, it is a defence to murder if it is proved that a person was insane at the time of the acts which constitute the offence. This is a recognition by the law that a person’s thinking at the relevant time may, because of mental illness, be so disordered that he or she lacks the capacity to be held criminally responsible. It is not an easy defence to prove. Nor does it follow that the insane person goes free.
[13] Ordinarily, whether the defendant establishes on the balance of probabilities that he or she was insane at the time of the commission of the offence is a question of fact to be decided by a jury. However, s 20 of CPMIP provides that a Judge may make an insanity finding without the need for a jury trial if, as set out in s 20(2):
(a)the defendant indicates an intention to raise the defence of insanity; and
(b)the prosecution agrees that the only reasonable verdict is a finding of act proven but not criminally responsible 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 act or omission that forms the basis of the offence with which the defendant is charged.
[14]As Lang J has said of this need for a Judge to be satisfied:3
This is an important matter because it requires the Court, independently of the attitudes taken by the Crown and the accused, to reach its own conclusion as to whether or not an accused person was insane within the meaning of s 23 of the Crimes Act 1961 at the time of the commission of the offence. It is important that the Court not be seen to be a mere “rubber stamp” for the views expressed by professionals, or, indeed, by the Crown and the defence. That is an important safeguard because our criminal justice system generally requires crimes such as this to be determined by a jury and not by a Judge sitting alone. It is equally important, however, that in appropriate cases persons who intend to raise a defence of insanity be permitted to have that issue determined in an expedited form before a Judge rather than going through the ordeal of a trial by jury.
Analysis
[15] This is a tragic case. Tom Coombes was killed as he walked home. It is not for me to determine whether Mr Eteuati, who had been severely mentally unwell, should have been in the community at the time. I am required to address the three requirements of s 20(2) of CPMIP in order to determine whether the Crown case should proceed to a jury trial. I address the three requirements in turn.
[16] The requirement in s 20(2)(a) is met. Mr Eteuati has indicated an intention to raise the defence of insanity. Dr Immelman’s report indicates the evidence to be called to support the defence.
[17] In relation to the requirement in s 20(2)(b), following the oral evidence of the psychiatrists, Mr Harborow addressed the Court and advised that the Crown was now bound to accept that the only reasonable verdict is a finding of act proven but not criminally responsible on account of insanity. He submitted that, although Mr Eteuati may have been deliberate in his actions, and may have planned those to some extent, it was all in pursuit of his delusional thinking. For the Crown, he acknowledged the loss of Tom Coombes and how truly tragic it was.
3 R v Brown-Howarth HC Whangārei CRI-2006-088-2445, 10 December 2007 at [19].
[18] In relation to proving the act, Ms Kincade indicated that she would need final instructions – in particular, aspects of the Crown’s summary of facts were still being discussed, although neither counsel expected that these aspects related to essential acts giving rise to the offence.
[19] I indicated that I would reserve my decision with leave for counsel to file a joint memorandum today to confirm proof of the essential acts, and identifying any outstanding aspects in the summary of facts. In the meantime, Mr Eteuati is already remanded in custody at the Mason Clinic until trial next Monday, so no further order is necessary in that regard. At the end of the hearing, we also discussed suppression,4 and timetabling next steps in the event that I make a s 20 determination.5
[20] Today, Ms Kincade has confirmed that the summary of facts is agreed. Mr Eteuati accepts he was the person who attacked Mr Coombes as described in the summary of facts.
[21] There is no doubt that Mr Eteuati viciously attacked Mr Coombes with a knife, causing 42 sharp force injuries to Mr Coombes’ chest, neck, face and head, thereby causing his death.
[22] The ultimate question, in terms of s 20(2)(c), is whether I am satisfied, on the basis of expert evidence, that Mr Eteuati was insane within the meaning of s 23 of the Crimes Act at the time of the attack.
[23] Addressing the components of insanity under s 23, the expert psychiatrists Dr Pillai and Dr Immelman agreed, and I accept, that at the time of the attack Mr Eteuati was labouring under a disease of the mind, schizophrenia.
4 I confirmed that Mr Eteuati has interim name suppression and made an interim order suppressing the evidence at the hearing pending the Court’s decision. At the media’s request, and without opposition, I also confirmed that my decision will be made available to the media (subject of course to ongoing interim name suppression).
5 I note that during that procedural discussion shortly before we adjourned, Mr Eteuati left the VMR room. Ms Wright sought clarification of the procedural matters discussed in order to confirm them to Mr Eteuati.
[24] In terms of s 23(2)(a), the experts agreed that Mr Eteuati knew that he had stabbed a man with a knife and it was not suggested by either expert that Mr Eteuati lacked understanding of the nature and quality of the act, that is his actions at the time.
[25] The key issue is whether, in terms of s 23(2)(b), at the time of the attack Mr Eteuati was labouring under schizophrenia to such an extent as to render him incapable of knowing that his actions were morally wrong, having regard to the commonly accepted standards of right and wrong.
[26] Dr Pillai’s report stated that he considered that on balance the severity of Mr Eteuati’s psychotic delusions at the time impaired his capacity to understand the wrongfulness of his actions, but he acknowledged countervailing factors: that Mr Eteuati had a history of propensity for violence encapsulated within an antisocial personality disorder, and that Mr Eteuati attempted to conceal his responsibility for the death of Mr Coombes from soon after the time of the alleged offending (in various ways).
[27] Dr Immelman’s report more firmly stated that he was of the view that Mr Eteuati was psychotic at the time of the alleged offending to the extent that would have rendered him incapable of understanding that his actions were morally wrong. However, his report did not account for Mr Eteuati’s apparent attempts to conceal the killing afterwards.
[28] At the oral hearing, Dr Pillai and Dr Immelman addressed these and other countervailing factors (namely that Mr Eteuati went to the gym later on the night of the killing and may have initially run away from police when located in the wastewater tunnels three days later). The experts agreed that despite the countervailing factors Mr Eteuati was suffering from a disease of the mind so severely and to such an extent that he did not know what he was doing was morally wrong. They reconciled the countervailing factors with Mr Eteuati’s lack of understanding by reference to interrelated differences of timing and differences between legal and moral wrongfulness.
[29] I accept their careful evidence. I am satisfied on the basis of the expert evidence that Mr Eteuati was insane within the meaning of s 23 of the Crimes Act at the time of the attack.
[30] As a result, in terms of s 20 of CPMIP, I record a finding of act proven but not criminally responsible on account of insanity.
[31] It is necessary to explain the meaning of that finding to Mr Eteuati, and I also do so to Mr Coombes’ family. Given the combination of reserving this decision and Mr Eteuati’s need for a communication assistant, I explain the finding in this decision so that Ms Wright can explain it to Mr Eteuati. I can explain it to Mr Eteuati directly before proceeding with the disposition hearing that must follow.
[32] Mr Eteuati, this finding means that it is proved that you stabbed Mr Coombes causing his death, but that you are not criminally responsible on account of insanity. You will be acquitted of the criminal offence, but this does not mean you can go free. I must order that enquiries be made to determine the most suitable method of dealing with you. I must determine whether your detention in a hospital or secure facility is necessary. I will receive further reports and convene a disposition hearing. In the meantime, you will stay at the Mason Clinic.
[33] I also note the place of Mr Coombes’ family at the heart of our justice and health systems, with equivalent rights to those they would have had if Mr Eteuati had been found guilty. The impact on Mr Coombes’ family will also be considered at the disposition hearing.
Result
[34] I record a finding of act proven but not criminally responsible on account of insanity. I acquit Mr Eteuati on account of the insanity.
[35]I vacate the fixture commencing on 12 February 2024.
[36] I order further reports of two health assessors (at least one of whom must be a psychiatrist) addressing whether the detention of Mr Eteuati in accordance with one
of the orders specified in s 24(2) of CPMIP is necessary, and the other matters required under ss 24 and 25.
[37] A disposition hearing is to be allocated on the first available date after 19 March 2024.
[38] Mr Eteuati is remanded in custody at the Mason Clinic until the disposition hearing under s 23 CPMIP.
[39]Mr Eteuati’s interim name suppression continues pending disposition.
[40] Any application for permanent name suppression, and evidence in support, is to be filed and served by 15 March 2024.
[41]I lift the interim order suppressing the evidence at yesterday’s hearing.
Gault J
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
0
0