R v K - [2020] NZHC 1350

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2019-092-11229

[2020] NZHC 1350

THE QUEEN

v

K

Hearing: 25 March 2020

Appearances:

G R Kayes for Crown K Allen for Defendant

Judgment:

16 June 2020

JUDGMENT OF PETERS J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Peters on 16 June 2020 at 2 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 1350 [16 June 2020]

[1] As a result of events in August and October 2019, K was charged with the offences listed below (“charges”) and remanded to Mt Eden Corrections Facility. It was apparent from an early stage that it would be necessary to investigate whether K was fit to stand trial by reference to the procedures in the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 (“CPMIP”).

[2] Following a hearing on 12 March 2020, and pursuant to s 8A CPMIP, I determined K was mentally impaired but fit to stand trial.1 Counsel for K, Ms Allen, then advised K proposed to raise the defence of insanity to the charges.

[3] Section 20 CPMIP sets out the procedure to be followed in that event. If the prosecution agrees the only reasonable verdict is not guilty on account of insanity, then a Judge must determine, on the basis of expert evidence, whether the defendant was insane within the meaning of s 23 Crimes Act 1961 at the time of commission of the offence(s).

[4] Having considered its position, the Crown agreed the only reasonable verdict would be not guilty on account of insanity. On 25 March 2020, I conducted a hearing on the relevant issues. With New Zealand about to go into Alert Level 4 lockdown in response to COVID-19, I issued a results judgment that recorded a finding K was not guilty of the charges on the ground of insanity.2 These are my reasons.

Charges

[5] Before proceeding, I must first be satisfied K has committed the offending, or conduct, with which he has been charged. These are:

(a)threatening behaviour on 8 August 2019;3

(b)unlawfully being in an enclosed yard on 16 October 2019;4

1      R v K [2020] NZHC 504.
2      R v K [2020] NZHC 646.
3      Summary Offences Act 1981, s 21(1)(a) — maximum penalty of 3 months’ imprisonment or a
$2,000 fine.
4      Section 29(1)(b) — maximum penalty of 3 months’ imprisonment or a $2,000 fine.

(c)inciting murder on 23 October 2019;5 and

(d)resisting arrest on 23 October 2019.6

[6]The undisputed events giving rise to these charges are as follows.

Threatening behaviour

[7] On 7 August 2019, K’s former sister-in-law posted a photograph of one of K’s children on Facebook. K commented on the post the next day saying “Anyone who gets in the way of me and my kids will be shot in the head I don’t gve a fuck any more…

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 1350
Case: [2020] NZHC 1350
Decision Date: 16 June 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, R v K was heard to determine whether the defendant, K, was fit to stand trial and, if so, whether he was guilty of the charges against him or not guilty by reason of insanity. The charges against K included threatening behaviour, unlawfully being in an enclosed yard, inciting murder, and resisting arrest. The court found that K was mentally impaired but fit to stand trial. The defence of insanity was raised, and the Crown agreed that the only reasonable verdict would be not guilty on account of insanity. The court was required to determine whether K was insane within the meaning of s 23 Crimes Act 1961 at the time of the commission of the offences. The court considered expert evidence from two experienced consultant psychiatrists and concluded that K was labouring under a disease of the mind at the relevant time. The court found K was incapable of knowing his acts were morally wrong due to his illness. The court determined K was not guilty of the charges on the ground of insanity.

This case highlights the importance of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 and the need for expert evidence in determining whether a defendant is fit to stand trial and whether they were insane at the time of the commission of the offence. The court's decision in this case demonstrates the importance of considering the defendant's mental state at the time of the offending and the need for a thorough review of the defendant's psychiatric history and relevant information. The court's determination that K was not guilty by reason of insanity demonstrates the importance of considering the defendant's mental state and the need for appropriate disposition and treatment.

Orders