R v Kingi

[2017] NZHC 3061

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 3061

BETWEEN

THE QUEEN

Informant

AND

KORONERIA KINGI Defendant

Hearing:	2 November 2017
Appearances:	MB Smith for Crown DPH Jones QC and H Drury, counsel assisting the Court BL Sellars for Defendant
Judgment:	2 November 2017

ORAL JUDGMENT OF TOOGOOD J

R v Kingi [2017] NZHC 3061 [2 November 2017]

[1]      Koroneria Kingi is charged with the murder of his brother-in-law, David

Tamiora,  at Whangarei  on  10 February 2016.    It  is  alleged  that  Mr Kingi  killed

Mr Tamiora by stabbing him in the neck with a knife. Other injuries were inflicted by the knife and other weapons.

[2]      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. 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]      On 2 February 2017, after receiving the evidence of two health assessors as to whether Mr Kingi was mentally impaired, Fitzgerald J held that she was satisfied

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 2017.2

[4]      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.

[5]      Dr Himadra Seth provided a report dated 7 August 2017 in which he reported that Mr Kingi is suffering from a disease of the mind, namely paranoid schizophrenia. Dr Seth expressed the opinion that Mr Kingi was insane at the time of the acts leading to the charge and was unfit to stand trial. He confirmed those views in his report dated

28 September 2017 and in evidence, but I record that he clarified today, helpfully, that his ability to reach a firm opinion about Mr Kingi’s insanity at the time of the offending was adversely affected by his clear view that Mr Kingi was unfit to stand trial.  The

nature of Mr Kingi’s disability is such that it precluded him from explaining to the

1      R v Kingi [2016] NZHC 2546.

2      R v Kingi [2017] NZHC 99.

extent that Dr Seth might have wished, his state of mind and the events at the time of the alleged murder.

[6]      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.

[7]      Dr Ian Goodwin, who had previously provided a report under s 14(1), provided an updating report under the section dated 13 October 2017.

[8]      Today I have received the evidence of the two health assessors, Drs Goodwin and Seth, and I have heard from counsel for the parties and from Mr DPH Jones QC who is appointed as counsel to assist the Court.

[9]      I record that in their evidence, Drs Goodwin and Seth agree that Mr Kingi is suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and is therefore mentally impaired in terms of the Act.  They also express the view that he is unfit to stand trial.  Dr Seth appearing to hold that opinion more firmly; Dr Goodwin taking the view that the issue is finely balanced but the balanced falls on the side of unfitness.

[10]     For reasons which I will give more fully in writing in due course, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Mr Kingi is mentally impaired, and that he is unfit to stand trial.

[11]     As a consequence, I order 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.  Section 23(4) requires that the enquiries be made as quickly as practicable and, in any event, within 30 days after the date of this Judgment.   The enquiries shall include obtaining a report from at least one practicing psychiatrist who is registered as a medical practitioner as to whether the detention of Mr Kingi in accordance with one of the orders specified in s 14(2) of the Act is necessary in the interests of the public or any person or any class of persons who may be affected by the Court’s decision. The Registrar is directed to ensure that the report is available to the Court and counsel no later than 22 November 2017.

[12]     For the purposes of those inquiries, I remand Mr Kingi to a hospital (being a hospital within the meaning of the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992.

[13]     Once the necessary inquiries are complete, I will hear from counsel as to the best procedure to be followed to enable determinations to be made under ss 24 and 25. I reserve leave to counsel for the Crown and for Mr Kingi to make such further applications as may be appropriate in the light of my findings and in the light of reports resulting from the enquiries.

[14]     I direct the Registrar to  arrange a  telephone conference with counsel  on

24 November 2017 at such time as may be convenient to counsel and the Court.

[15]     I am grateful to Mr Jones QC and Ms Jury for their assistance.   I do not consider it necessary to continue Mr Jones’ appointment as counsel assisting the Court beyond this point.  But I do thank you, Mr Jones, as always it has been very helpful.

……………………………… Toogood J