R v Komene - [2013] NZHC 1347

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2012-090-002641 [2013] NZHC 1347

THE QUEEN

v

JACOB KOMENE

Hearing: 30 May 2013

Counsel: K Lummis for the Crown
J Corby for the accused

Judgment: 7 June 2013

JUDGMENT OF ASHER J

This judgment was delivered by me on Friday, 7 June 2013 at 4pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Auckland. J Corby, Auckland.

R v KOMENE [2013] NZHC 1347 [7 June 2013]

Introduction

[1] On 30 May 2013, I heard an application under s 14 of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 in relation to whether Mr Komene was unfit to stand trial.

[2] I determined that Mr Komene was fit to stand trial. I now set out the reasons for my decision.

A home invasion and attack

[3] At about 9.30 pm on 18 April 2012, Mr Komene entered a residential address in Glendene by forcing open the front window. Once inside he came across the resident, 95 year old Mr Alfred Chant. Mr Komene advanced on him and struck him hard in the face with a knife leaving a two centimetre laceration near his ear, severing a nerve and an artery, and fracturing Mr Chant’s jaw. Mr Komene then left the house. Mr Komene was charged with aggravated burglary, and attempted murder or wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

[4] On 10 October 2012, Mr Komene entered pleas of guilty to counts of aggravated burglary and wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.1 The alternative charge of attempted murder will, in due course, be dismissed.

[5] On entering a plea, Woolford J remanded Mr Komene in custody for sentence. He also directed that reports under s 88(2) of the Sentencing Act 2002 be prepared in relation to the possibility of a sentence of preventive detention.

[6] In the course of those s 88(2) reports being prepared, questions arose as to Mr Komene’s fitness to enter a plea to the offences. The procedure set out in the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 (the CPMIP Act) was invoked.

[7] On 4 December 2012, Mr Komene appeared before Duffy J who recorded that the CPMIP Act procedures were being followed. The first step of that procedure

was for her to make a determination under s 9 of the CPMIP Act concerning Mr Komene’s involvement in the offences, on the balance of probabilities. Mr Corby for Mr Komene, who had reviewed all the disclosed materials, considered that those materials supported the summary of facts and that the summary was accurate. Duffy J was satisfied that the test under s 9 was met.2 She recorded that it was necessary to proceed to a s 14 hearing. That hearing has now taken place before me.

Approach to an application following a guilty plea, prior to sentence

[8] The question whether Mr Komene was fit to stand trial arose after the entry of guilty pleas and prior to sentence.…

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 Komene

Details

AGLC: R v Komene [2013] NZHC 1347
Case: [2013] NZHC 1347
Decision Date: 7 June 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Komene, the High Court of New Zealand was tasked with determining whether the accused, Mr Komene, was fit to stand trial following his guilty plea to charges of aggravated burglary and wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The case arose out of an incident where Mr Komene entered a residence by force, assaulted an elderly resident, and left the scene. The court was required to decide whether Mr Komene was fit to stand trial under the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 after he had already entered guilty pleas. The primary legal issue was whether the court had jurisdiction to make a finding of unfitness to stand trial after a guilty plea had been entered. The court found that the Act's provisions were intended to provide appropriate options for the detention, assessment, and care of defendants with intellectual disabilities, and that a court could assess fitness at the sentencing stage. The court also had to distinguish between fitness to plead and fitness to stand trial, concluding that a defendant could be fit to plead but not necessarily fit to conduct a defence. In this instance, while the experts differed on whether Mr Komene could conduct a defence, the court concluded that given the simplicity of the case, Mr Komene was fit to stand trial with appropriate procedural adaptations.

The court's reasoning was grounded in statutory interpretation and the legislative purpose of providing options for defendants with intellectual disabilities. The court held that the statutory language allowed for fitness assessments post-plea and that such an approach was consistent with the Act's objectives. The distinction between fitness to plead and fitness to conduct a defence was also clarified, with the court finding that a defendant could be fit to plead but not necessarily fit to conduct a defence. In this case, the court determined that Mr Komene's cognitive impairments did not prevent him from understanding the charges and the implications of his guilty plea. Despite differing expert opinions on his ability to conduct a defence, the court concluded that with procedural adaptations, Mr Komene was fit to stand trial. The court ultimately determined that Mr Komene was fit to stand trial and remanded him in custody for sentencing.

Orders