R v Hiroti - [2023] NZHC 980

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGANUI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGANUI ROHE

CRI-2022-083-1198

[2023] NZHC 980

THE KING

v

STANLEY BERNARD ERUINI HIROTI

Hearing: 28 April 2023

Counsel:

J Harvey for the Crown D Goodlet for Mr Hiroti

Judgment:

28 April 2023

JUDGMENT OF GWYN J

(Summary of judgment delivered orally)

Introduction

[1] This is a disposition hearing under s 24 of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 (Act) in relation to Stanley Hiroti.

[2] Mr Hiroti is charged with manslaughter1 for causing the death of Jeremy Pearcey by an unlawful act, namely driving a motor vehicle in a dangerous manner while intoxicated.2

1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 151(1), 171, 160(2)(a) and 177. The maximum penalty is life imprisonment.
2 Land Transport Act 1998, ss 36AA and 61(1)(b). The maximum penalty is five years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to $20,000.

R v HIROTI [2023] NZHC 980 [28 April 2023]

[3] On 20 February 2023 Grice J found that Mr Hiroti was mentally impaired and unfit to stand trial.3 Justice Grice also concluded that it is unlikely Mr Hiroti will become fit to stand trial given the nature of his mental impairment. Justice Grice went on to conclude, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr Hiroti caused Mr Pearcey’s death by dangerous driving while intoxicated.

[4] The purpose of today’s hearing is to consider the next steps, in light of Grice J’s earlier findings. Before I do so, it is necessary for me to set out the background.

The offending

[5] On 10 June 2022, Mr Hiroti was driving a Ford utility which collided with a Volkswagon Golf driven by Mr Pearcey approximately four kilometres outside of Turakina. Mr Hiroti was driving in the wrong lane towards oncoming traffic at the time of the crash. Mr Pearcey’s driving and his vehicle did not contribute to the accident.

[6] The Police estimated Mr Hiroti was driving 114 kilometres per hour at the time of the crash.

[7] Mr Hiroti had 186 micrograms of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood — just under four times the legal limit of blood alcohol — and a minimal amount of cannabis in his bloodstream.

[8]Witnesses to the crash described Mr Hiroti as driving dangerously

2.3 kilometres north-west of the scene of the accident. Mr Hiroti was described as having attempted to overtake a vehicle on a blind corner whilst driving south in the oncoming north-west traffic passing lane. He continued driving in a dangerous manner until the fatal crash.

3 R v S [2022] NZHC 273.

Mr Hiroti’s mental impairment

[9] On 20 February 2023, Grice J considered Mr Hiroti’s fitness to stand trial.4 Her Honour considered the evidence of two medical assessors, Dr Andrew Bailey, a consultant forensic psychiatrist, and Mr Paul Carlyon, a clinical psychologist with the Mental Health, Addictions and Intellectual Disability Service of Te Whatu Ora–Health New Zealand. The evidence showed that Mr Hiroti has a significant cognitive impairment which renders him…

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 Hiroti

Details

AGLC: R v Hiroti [2023] NZHC 980
Case: [2023] NZHC 980
Decision Date: 28 April 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Stanley Bernard Erini Hiroti has been found unfit to stand trial for manslaughter, following an incident on 10 June 2022, in which he collided with and killed Jeremy Pearcey. The key issue before the Court was what steps to take in light of the defendant's mental impairment. The Court was required to decide whether to detain Mr Hiroti as a special patient, or whether there was an alternative disposition available. Section 24 of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 sets out the available orders once a defendant has been found unfit to stand trial. The Court must assess whether such an order is necessary in the interests of the public. The Court considered the evidence of a health assessor and determined that it was not necessary to detain Mr Hiroti as a special patient. Given that there is no treatment available for dementia, and that the risk of reoffending was minimal, the Court determined that an alternative disposition was appropriate. The Court ordered Mr Hiroti's immediate release under s 25(1)(d) of the Act, with orders under the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988 to ensure that Mr Hiroti's whānau would provide necessary supervision. The Court also lifted an interim order for name suppression, in light of the views of the victim's family.

Orders