R v Kingi - [2017] NZHC 2938

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI TERENGA PARĀOA ROHE

CRI-2016-088-386 [2017] NZHC 2938

BETWEEN
THE QUEEN

Informant

AND

KORONERIA KINGI Defendant

Hearing: 29 November 2017

Appearances:

MB Smith for Crown
BL Sellars for Defendant

Judgment:

29 November 2017

ORAL JUDGMENT OF TOOGOOD J [Disposition under s 24(2) Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003]

R v Kingi [2017] NZHC 2938 [29 November 2017]

Introduction

[1] Mr Koroneria Kingi is charged with the murder of his brother-in-law, David Taniora, at Whangarei on 10 February 2016. It is alleged that, in what the Crown says was an unprovoked attack, Mr Kingi killed Mr Taniora by stabbing him in the neck with a knife. Other injuries were inflicted by the knife and other weapons.

[2] The issue of Mr Kingi’s fitness to stand trial was raised and the appropriate procedure under the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 (“the Act”) was engaged. On 25 October 2016, under s 9 of the Act, Whata J recorded a finding, on a balance of probabilities, that Mr Kingi had caused the act that formed the basis of the offence of murder with which he is charged.1

[3] In an oral judgment dated 2 November 2017, delivered after I had heard evidence from two health assessors - Dr Himadri Seth and Dr Ian Goodwin - and submissions from counsel for the parties and from Mr DPH Jones QC as counsel to assist the Court, I determined that Mr Kingi is unfit to stand trial.2 I set out the reasons for that decision in a judgment dated 10 November 2017.3

[4] On the basis of the evidence given by Dr Seth and Dr Goodwin, I found:

(a) there is credible evidence upon which an insanity defence might be founded on Mr Kingi’s behalf; but

(b)Mr Kingi’s denial of his mental illness and impairment, and reported views of the events leading to Mr Taniora’s death, are genuine and psychotic in nature in that they are out of touch with reality and clearly at odds with the available facts; and

(c) that as a result, Mr Kingi is incapable by reason of his mental impairment from communicating adequately with counsel so as to be
able to conduct a defence or instruct counsel to do so.

1      R v Kingi [2016] NZHC 2546.
2      R v Kingi [2017] NZHC 2940.
3      R v Kingi [2017] NZHC 2675.

[5] I found it to be proved to a high degree of probability that Mr Kingi suffers from treatment resistant paranoid schizophrenia; that he was probably insane at the time he committed the acts leading to the charge; and he was unfit to stand trial.

[6] I ordered under s 23(1) of the Act that inquiries be made to determine the most suitable method of dealing with Mr Kingi under s 24 or s 25 of the Act.

Further health assessor’s report

[7] On 17 November 2017, Dr Seth reported…

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 Kingi

Details

AGLC: R v Kingi [2017] NZHC 2938
Case: [2017] NZHC 2938
Decision Date: 29 November 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Kingi, heard in the High Court of New Zealand at Whangarei, involves Koroneria Kingi, who stands accused of murdering his brother-in-law, David Taniora, on 10 February 2016. The Crown alleges that Kingi committed the unprovoked murder by stabbing Taniora in the neck and inflicting other injuries with a knife and other weapons. The central issue in this case is Kingi's fitness to stand trial, which was brought into question under the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003. The court was required to determine whether Kingi was mentally fit to conduct his own defence or instruct counsel.

The court, after hearing evidence from two health assessors and submissions from counsel, found that Kingi is unfit to stand trial due to his severe mental impairment, specifically treatment-resistant paranoid schizophrenia. The evidence presented demonstrated Kingi's lack of insight into his illness and his delusional beliefs, which rendered him incapable of adequately communicating with counsel. Additionally, there was credible evidence suggesting Kingi might have been insane at the time of the offence. The court determined that Kingi's denial of his mental illness and his reported views on the events leading to Taniora's death were genuine and psychotic, being out of touch with reality. Therefore, Kingi's fitness to stand trial was deemed unfit.

Given the findings, the court ordered further inquiries to determine the most suitable method of dealing with Kingi under the Act. Following the report from Dr. Seth, who continued to observe Kingi's lack of insight into his illness and the role it played in Taniora's death, the court concluded that Kingi's continued detention as a special patient was necessary for the protection of the public and other members of Kingi's whanau. The court acknowledged the tragic circumstances surrounding the case and expressed sympathy to both the Taniora and Kingi whanau. Ultimately, the court ordered Kingi to be detained in a hospital as a special patient under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992, ensuring he receives the necessary medical care and treatment.

Orders