R v Gilchrist - [2019] NZHC 480

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

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

CRI-2018-096-3103

[2019] NZHC 480

THE QUEEN

v

DAVID CHARLES GILCHRIST

Hearing: 18 March 2019

Counsel:

G J Burston for Crown P Paino for Defendant

Oral Judgment:

18 March 2019

ORAL JUDGMENT OF CHURCHMAN J

Introduction

[1] Mr Gilchrist has pleaded not guilty to the murder of Glen Edward Collins on 20 September 2018. The basis of that plea is that he was not guilty on the grounds of insanity. That has been confirmed today.

[2] The Crimes Act 1961 provides that a person who is insane at the time of committing an offence shall not be convicted of that offence.1

[3] Previously, the issue of whether or not a defence of insanity was made out was a matter left to the jury. However, the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 23.

R v GILCHRIST [2019] NZHC 480 [18 March 2019]

Persons) Act 2003 (the Act)2 now provides for an alternative procedure, and this is the procedure that the Court is undertaking today. This particular section is applicable if the defendant indicates that he intends to raise the defence of insanity, and the prosecution agrees that the only reasonable verdict is not guilty on account of insanity and the Judge is satisfied, on the basis of expert evidence, that the defendant was insane within the meaning of s 23 of the Crimes Act 1961 at the time of the commission of the offence.

[4] That is the reason why today we have had Dr Barry-Walsh give evidence to the Court and why the Court has also been supplied with detailed psychiatric opinions. Those are the documents that were referred to by Dr Barry-Walsh during the course of his giving his evidence.

[5] The purpose of this hearing today is to establish whether the Court can be satisfied on the basis of that expert evidence that Mr Gilchrist was insane at the time he killed Mr Collins.3

[6] If the Court is satisfied that the defendant was at the time of the offence, insane, as that concept is defined in the Crimes Act, the Court is required to enter a verdict of not guilty on the grounds of insanity.

[7] The issue of whether the defendant was insane at the time of committing the offence is a separate issue as to whether or not the defendant is fit to stand trial. In the present case no issue arises in respect of that matter as both the Crown and the defence are satisfied on the basis of the psychiatric evidence that has been made available to the Court that the defendant is now fit to stand trial.

[8] If the Court is satisfied that the defendant was insane at the time of committing the offence, then it is obliged to consider all the circumstances of the case, the evidence of one or more health assessors as to whether the detention of the…

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 Gilchrist

Details

AGLC: R v Gilchrist [2019] NZHC 480
Case: [2019] NZHC 480
Decision Date: 18 March 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of the Queen v David Charles Gilchrist involved the defendant pleading not guilty to the murder of Glen Edward Collins, asserting a defence of insanity. The court had to determine whether the defendant was insane at the time of the offence, according to the definition in the Crimes Act 1961. The court's decision hinged on expert psychiatric evidence regarding the defendant's mental state at the time of the murder.

The court was required to assess whether the defendant, David Charles Gilchrist, was insane at the time of committing the offence of murder. Insanity, as defined in the Crimes Act 1961, exempts a person from conviction if they were not in control of their actions due to a mental disorder. The court had to rely on expert psychiatric evidence and opinions to make this determination. The Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 provided a framework for the court to follow if the defendant intended to raise the defence of insanity, and the prosecution agreed that the only reasonable verdict would be not guilty by reason of insanity.

The court examined the evidence provided by two psychiatrists, Dr Barry-Walsh and Dr Nick Judson. Both psychiatrists concluded that the defendant was suffering from a severe mental illness, specifically schizophrenia, at the time of the offence. This conclusion was based on the defendant's history of psychotic episodes, failure to take prescribed medication, and the events leading up to the murder. The court was satisfied, based on this expert evidence, that the defendant was indeed insane at the time of the offence. Consequently, the court found the defendant not guilty on the grounds of insanity. The court then proceeded to consider the appropriate disposition for the defendant under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992, ordering that the defendant be detained as a special patient in a hospital for treatment and rehabilitation.

The final order of the court was that David Charles Gilchrist be detained as a Special Patient under the Mental Health Act. This decision was made considering the defendant's history of mental illness, the risks he posed to society, and the recommendations of the psychiatric experts. The court acknowledged the family of the victim, expressing sympathy for their loss and recognizing the importance of their statement in the proceedings.

Orders