R v K - [2020] NZHC 1403

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2019-092-11229

[2020] NZHC 1403

THE QUEEN

v

K

Hearing: 19 June 2020

Appearances:

A F Devathasan for Crown K Allen for Defendant

Judgment:

19 June 2020

JUDGMENT OF PETERS J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Peters on 19 June 2020 at 4.50 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date: ...................................

Solicitors:Kayes Fletcher Walker Ltd, Crown Solicitor, Manukau Public Defence Service, Manukau

R v K [2020] NZHC 1403 [19 June 2020]

Introduction

[1] In my judgment of 12 March 2020, I found K mentally impaired but fit to stand trial on the various charges he faced. In my judgments of 25 March and 16 June 2020 (Result and Reasons respectively), I found K not guilty on account of insanity pursuant to s 20 Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 (“CPMIP”).1 Thereafter, I ordered that inquiries be made to determine the most suitable method of dealing with K under ss 24 or 25 CPMIP. This judgment decides that issue.

The law

[2]Sections 24, 25 and 26(1) CPMIP provide:

24Detention of defendant found unfit to stand trial or insane as special patient or special care recipient

(1)When the court has sufficient information on the condition of a defendant found unfit to stand trial or acquitted on account of his or her insanity, the court must—

(a)consider all the circumstances of the case; and

(b)consider the evidence of 1 or more health assessors as to whether the detention of the defendant in accordance with one of the orders specified in subsection (2) is necessary; and

(c)make one of the orders referred to in paragraph (b) if it is satisfied that the making of the order is necessary in the interests of the public or any person or class of person who may be affected by the court's decision.

(2)The orders referred to in subsection (1) are that the defendant be detained—

(a)in a hospital as a special patient under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992; or

(b)in a secure facility as a special care recipient under the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003.

(3)Before the court makes an order specified in subsection (2)(a), the court must have received evidence, under subsection (1)(b), about the defendant from at least 1 health assessor who is a psychiatrist

1 R v K [2020] NZHC 504; R v K [2020] NZHC 646; and R v K [2020] NZHC 1350.

25Alternative decisions in respect of defendant unfit to stand trial or insane

(1)If, after considering the matters specified in section 24(1)(a) and (b) concerning a defendant found unfit to stand trial or acquitted on account of his or her insanity, the court is not satisfied that an order under section 24(2) is necessary, the court must deal with the defendant—

(a)by ordering that the defendant be treated as a patient under the Mental Health (Compulsory…

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 K

Details

AGLC: R v K [2020] NZHC 1403
Case: [2020] NZHC 1403
Decision Date: 19 June 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Justice Peters delivered a judgment on 19 June 2020, concerning the case of the Crown versus K. The case involved determining the most suitable method of dealing with K, who had previously been found not guilty on account of insanity. The legal issues that the court had to decide included whether to detain K as a special patient under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992 or as a special care recipient under the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003. The court had to consider all the circumstances of the case and the evidence of one or more health assessors.

The court considered sections 24, 25 and 26(1) of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003, which provide for the detention of a defendant found unfit to stand trial or acquitted on account of his or her insanity, as well as alternative decisions in respect of such a defendant. The court also had to consider the reports of Dr Surendhraj Naidu, an experienced consultant psychiatrist, and Dr Michael Easden, a senior clinical psychologist. The court found that it was not necessary to detain K as a special patient or special care recipient. The court was satisfied that an order should be made pursuant to s 25(1)(a), namely that K be treated as a patient under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992, and that this order should take effect as an inpatient order.

In conclusion, the court ordered that K be treated as a patient under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992, with this order to take effect as an inpatient order. The court also ordered the release of the reports of Drs Naidu and Easden and Dr Naidu’s updating letters to any future physician or team treating K. The court extended the existing order for the interim suppression of K’s name pending further order of the Court.

Orders