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…

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 3061
Case: [2017] NZHC 3061
Decision Date: 2 November 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Koroneria Kingi stands accused of murdering his brother-in-law, David Tamiora, by stabbing him in the neck and inflicting other injuries at Whangarei on 10 February 2016. The case involves significant concerns about Mr Kingi's mental health, specifically paranoid schizophrenia, which has been evaluated by health assessors. Given these mental health concerns, the court must determine whether Mr Kingi is fit to stand trial and, if not, the appropriate method of dealing with him under the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether Mr Kingi was mentally impaired and unfit to stand trial, as well as whether he was insane at the time of the alleged offence. The court had to consider the reports and testimonies of two health assessors, Drs Seth and Goodwin, who both concluded that Mr Kingi was mentally impaired and unfit to stand trial. The court also had to balance these findings with the statutory requirements for determining fitness to stand trial and the appropriate course of action if the defendant is found unfit.

The court found that Mr Kingi is indeed mentally impaired and unfit to stand trial, primarily based on the consensus between the health assessors that his paranoid schizophrenia precluded him from adequately participating in his defence. Dr Seth's opinion that Mr Kingi was insane at the time of the offence was noted, although the court recognised that this opinion was somewhat influenced by Mr Kingi's unfitness to stand trial. The court ordered inquiries to determine the most suitable method of dealing with Mr Kingi under the Act, including obtaining a report from a practicing psychiatrist regarding the necessity of his detention. Mr Kingi was remanded to a hospital pending the completion of these inquiries.

The court's final orders included the initiation of inquiries to determine the most appropriate method of dealing with Mr Kingi under the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003. The court also directed that Mr Kingi be remanded to a hospital and scheduled a telephone conference with counsel to discuss the next steps in the proceedings. The appointment of counsel assisting the Court was concluded, with gratitude expressed for their assistance.

Orders