R v Kingi - [2017] NZHC 2765

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 2765

BETWEEN
THE QUEEN

Informant

AND

KORONERIA KINGI Defendant

Hearing: 2 November 2017

Appearances:

MB Smith for Crown
DPH Jones QC and BL Sellars for Defendant

Judgment:

2 November 2017

Reasons:

10 November 2017

REASONS JUDGMENT OF TOOGOOD [Fitness to stand trial]

This judgment was delivered by me on 10 November 2017 at 4.15 pm
Pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

R v Kingi [2017] NZHC 2765 [2 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] In an oral judgment dated 2 November 2017, delivered after I had heard evidence from two health assessors 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. This judgment sets out the reasons for that decision.

Background

[3] Because of concerns about Mr Kingi’s mental health, he has been the subject of enquiries under the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 (CPMIP Act) since last year. On 3 March 2016, Thomas J directed that two assessment reports under s 38(1)(a) and (b) of the Act be provided to determine whether Mr Kingi was fit to stand trial.

[4] 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. On 2 February 2017, Fitzgerald J held that she was satisfied on the evidence of two health assessors’ reports that Mr Kingi was mentally impaired. After hearing from counsel for the Crown and Mr Kingi, the Judge found Mr Kingi fit to stand trial. She gave her reasons for that decision in a judgment dated 8 February 2017.

[5] There were continuing concerns about Mr Kingi’s impairment and a further report from a health assessor was called for. The health assessor was asked to report both on Mr Kingi’s fitness to stand trial and, more particularly, on whether Mr Kingi was insane, in terms of s 23 of the Crimes Act 1961, at the time of the acts leading to the charge. On 21 August 2017, after hearing from counsel, I directed that a second

health assessor be requested to report under s 14(1) of the Act as to whether Mr Kingi is mentally impaired and as to whether he is unfit to stand trial.

Relevant law

[6] Section 4(1) of the CPMIP Act says:

unfit to stand trial, in relation to a defendant,—

(a)…

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 2765
Case: [2017] NZHC 2765
Decision Date: 2 November 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Koroneria Kingi is charged with the murder of David Taniora. The court was required to determine whether Mr Kingi was fit to stand trial. The relevant law sets out the definition of "unfit to stand trial" and the standard of proof as to whether Mr Kingi is mentally impaired and, if so, whether he is unfit to stand trial. The court considered the original assessment reports and the decision on fitness to stand trial, as well as the new assessment reports. The experts' evidence showed that Mr Kingi was mentally impaired and unable to consider an insanity defence. The court found that Mr Kingi was unfit to stand trial. The court ordered inquiries to determine the most suitable method of dealing with Mr Kingi under the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003.

Orders