R v Eteuati - [2024] NZHC 117

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…

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 117
Decision Date: 8 February 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, Christian Peter Eteuati faces a charge of murder. His three-week jury trial was scheduled to begin on 12 February 2024. The case revolves around the fatal stabbing of Mr. Tom Coombes on 24 May 2022. The central legal issue before the Court was whether Mr. Eteuati was insane at the time of the offence, under s 20(2) of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003. The Court had to determine if Mr. Eteuati was fit to stand trial and if the Crown and defence could agree on an insanity verdict, thereby avoiding a jury trial.

The Court reviewed the reports of two psychiatrists, Dr. Pillai and Dr. Immelman, who largely agreed on Mr. Eteuati’s mental state at the time of the offence. The Crown prosecutor agreed that insanity was the only reasonable verdict after hearing oral evidence from the psychiatrists. The defence counsel confirmed Mr. Eteuati’s intention to plead not guilty and denied responsibility for the offence. The Court was satisfied, based on expert evidence, that Mr. Eteuati was suffering from a severe mental disorder at the time of the attack, rendering him incapable of understanding the moral wrongfulness of his actions. Therefore, the Court found Mr. Eteuati not criminally responsible on account of insanity.

The Court vacated the scheduled jury trial and ordered further health assessments to determine the most suitable method of dealing with Mr. Eteuati, including potential detention in a hospital or secure facility. A disposition hearing was scheduled for the first available date after 19 March 2024. Mr. Eteuati remained remanded in custody at the Mason Clinic until the disposition hearing. His interim name suppression continued pending disposition, with any application for permanent name suppression to be filed by 15 March 2024. The interim order suppressing the evidence at the hearing was lifted.

Orders