R v J

[2023] NZHC 458

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS AND IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF DEFENDANT UNTIL DETERMINATION OF THE APPLICATION FOR PERMANENT NAME SUPPRESSION.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2021-087-1267

[2023] NZHC 458

THE KING

v

J

Hearing:	9 March 2023
Appearances:	D J McWilliam for the Crown R O Gowing for the Defendant
Judgment:	9 March 2023

ORAL JUDGMENT OF PALMER J

Solicitors

Crown Solicitor, Pollett Legal Ltd, Tauranga Gowing & Co Lawyers Ltd, Whakatane

R v J [2023] NZHC 458 [9 March 2023]

What happened?

[1]                 This is a tragic case. I must first outline the alleged offending. I do not go into all the details.

The alleged offending

[2]                 On the morning of Saturday 25 September 2021, J , now aged 22, was at home with his mother. His cousin came to visit his mother and they talked on the deck. J asked his mother on multiple occasions for a cigarette, which she refused to give him. Around 20 minutes after she refused one last time, about 12.30 pm, J came out onto the deck with a long silver kitchen knife. He stabbed his mother three times and continued to try to stab her while she defended herself and moved away. J’s cousin tried to intervene and calm him down, bravely standing between them. Eventually, he backed off.

[3]                 J’s cousin helped his mother walk up the driveway. She was transported by Police to await a helicopter but died from blood loss before the helicopter arrived. J was arrested. He appeared calm and cooperative. But, when removing his clothes for forensic purposes, he lashed out and punched a constable in the face and jaw. The constable was unconscious for a short time and bruised.

[4]                 J was charged with murder and assault of a police officer. He was detained in hospital for a psychiatric assessment under s 38 of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 (the Act). He has also been remanded in custody. A defence of insanity was raised.

[5]                 J has interim name suppression. Yesterday, he indicated he wishes to apply for permanent name suppression. Rather than dealing with that in a rush today, I continue the interim name suppression and set a timetable for submissions and evidence, which will allow the whānau to express a considered view as well, and a hearing on the application. So, while I refer to him by name in this hearing, the written transcript will anonymise his name.

[6]                 Today, I determine whether to find J’s acts, that form the basis of the alleged offences, are proven but that he is “not criminally responsible on account of insanity”

– or a verdict of “proven but insane” for short. That is a new and more accurate way of describing what used to be called “not guilty on account of insanity”. The legal tests under s 20(2)(b) of the Act are the same as they were before.

J

[7]                 J is a young Māori man who is described as being respectful, kind, and sociable as a teenager with a supportive peer group and a girlfriend. He left school at 17, began associating with what has been described to me as the “wrong crowd”, and smoking cannabis on a regular and heavy basis.

[8]                 J was first recorded as having a psychiatric illness in 2020. He was admitted to hospitals in November 2020, January 2021, February 2021, and May 2021. He was diagnosed with acute transient psychotic disorder, drug-induced psychotic disorder, and as presenting psychotic symptoms. He was prescribed medication. On 1 September 2021, three weeks before the offending, he was released from compulsory care and reported as being substance free. He agreed to take his medication but then declined to do so after being discharged.

[9]                 Two expert psychiatrists, Dr Jeremy Skipworth for the Crown and Dr Peter Dean for the defendant, have assessed J. Dr Dean considers J’s symptoms have been underestimated. He is quite confident with a diagnosis of schizophrenia and considers there is evidence of a cannabis use disorder. He states that J meets the threshold for being found “mentally disordered”. He confirms the defendant is fit to stand trial as he is aware of the charges he is facing, can instruct counsel to conduct a defence, is aware of the nature and purposes of proceedings against him, is aware of the plea, and potential consequences, of the proposed verdict. But, quoting from his report, Dr Dean considers, on the balance of probabilities, J “was labouring under a disease of the mind at a material time to such a degree he was unaware of the nature and quality of his actions, and that he was unaware of the moral wrongfulness of his actions, having regard to the common standards of right and wrong”.1

1      Peter Dean Re J (23 January 2023), at 14.

[10]             Dr Skipworth’s opinion is consistent with Dr Dean’s opinion. He also notes that J has a conviction for wilful damage in November 2020, when J explained he had taken cannabis and believed the owner of the house he damaged was a King with special powers to repair the damage. Dr Skipworth agrees that J has schizophrenia made worse by a cannabis use disorder and might have suffered from thought- blocking. He considers J was psychotic at the time of the events. He reaches the same conclusion as Dr Dean, that J was suffering from a disease of the mind at the time of the alleged offending and did not understand the nature and quality of his acts. He notes that, during his Police interview, J said he did not realise what he was doing. Dr Skipworth considers J’s psychotic beliefs grossly interfered with his ability to appreciate the moral wrongfulness of his actions.

[11]             There is clear evidence to support their opinions. J described believing he had thoughts in his head inserted by aliens, fearing the illuminati, believing all women in the world had been turned into Artificial Intelligence, believing his mother was a robot and had a contagious condition, that his vaping had caused the infection, that people did not really die (like in video games). He believed the TV, particularly the programme Peaky Blinders, was transmitting messages or signs to him. He had delusions and hallucinations. He heard spiritual voices taunting him. Despite trying to fight it, he became convinced his acts might save the world.

[12]             Dr Dean and Dr Skipworth both consider the defence I am considering is available. They both consider the disposition of this matter should be by way of a special patient order under s 24(2) of the Act. At the hearing today, they have explained to the whānau what that involves.

The whānau

[13]             I have read and heard the victim impact statement from J’s aunty, which was read in Court today. Understandably, she says the whānau is still in shock and disbelief over what happened. She describes how she found out about what happened. She says the death of J’s mother has robbed her six other children of sharing their firsts with their Mum. There is anger. There is no need for them to blame themselves. They

say, and I understand, that they will never fully recover from what happened and will live this every day for the rest of their lives. Our thoughts are with you all. Kia kaha.

Submissions

[14]             I turn to the submissions made by the lawyers. Mr Gowing, for J, says that J acknowledges and accepts he was responsible for causing the death of his mother and assaulting the Constable. Mr Gowing has raised the defence of insanity. He submits the documents filed by the Crown establish that J committed the relevant acts. He accepts, on the basis of the expert evidence before the Court, that J was insane within the meaning of s 23 of the Crimes Act at the time.

[15]             Mr McWilliam, for the Crown, agrees and accepts the only reasonable verdict is a finding of act proven but not criminally responsible on account of insanity. He and Mr Gowing both accept the two expert psychiatrists’ recommendations that I make a special patient order.

Disposition

[16]             On the basis of the information and submissions before me, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that J committed the acts which form the elements of the offences. I am also satisfied, on the basis of the reports of Dr Dean and Dr Skipworth, that when he committed those acts, J was labouring under a disease of the mind to such an extent as to render him incapable of understanding the nature and quality of his acts or knowing they were morally wrong. So, he was insane at the time he committed the offences within the meaning of s 23 of the Crimes Act.

[17]             J, for both of the offences with which you are charged, I find the relevant acts are proven but you are not criminally responsible on account of insanity. That means you will not be convicted or sentenced for what you have done. I acquit you on the charges on account of insanity. Instead, I order that you be detained in hospital as a special patient under s 24(2) of the Act. You are still early in your recovery journey. I am satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of the public and your whānau. To provide the greatest level of protection from further offending. This will ensure you are treated in a secure unit in the way that best achieves your rehabilitation and

reintegration into the community under the oversight of Forensic Mental Health Services.2 The whānau can be involved in the recovery process. I wish you all well.

Palmer J

2      M (CA819/11) v R [2012] NZCA 142, (2012) 28 FRNZ 773 at [7].