R v Landkroon
[2022] NZHC 2953
•10 November 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE
CRI-2022-009-270
[2022] NZHC 2953
THE KING v
RICHARD TIMOTHY LANDKROON
Hearing: 10 November 2022 Appearances:
P A Currie and K A Courteney for Crown
K J Beaton KC and A L Hollingworth for Defendant
Judgment:
10 November 2022
JUDGMENT OF EATON J
[on Disposition under the
Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003]
R v LANDKROON [2022] NZHC 2953 [10 November 2022]
[1] Having heard evidence from two health assessors I made a finding that Mr Landkroon was unfit to stand trial (result and reasons judgments).1 Today, a disposition hearing was convened to determine the most suitable method of dealing with Mr Landkroon.
[2] I have reviewed the formal written statements filed by the prosecution, the previous reports including the disposition reports filed by health assessors, consultant forensic psychiatrists, Dr Karen McDonnell and Associate Professor James Foulds. Today, I heard brief submissions from Ms Currie for the Crown and Ms Beaton KC for Mr Landkroon.
[3] The disposition determination is considered under s 24 of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 as follows:
24 Detention of defendant found unfit to stand trial or insane as special patient or special care recipient
(1)When the court has sufficient information on the condition of a defendant found unfit to stand trial or acquitted on account of his or her insanity, the court must—
(a)consider all the circumstances of the case; and
(b)consider the evidence of 1 or more health assessors as to whether the detention of the defendant in accordance with one of the orders specified in subsection (2) is necessary; and
(c)make one of the orders referred to in paragraph (b) if it is satisfied that the making of the order is necessary in the interests of the public or any person or class of person who may be affected by the court’s decision.
(2)The orders referred to in subsection (1) are that the defendant be detained—
(a)in a hospital as a special patient under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992; or
(b)in a secure facility as a special care recipient under the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003.
(3)Before the court makes an order specified in subsection (2)(a), the court must have received evidence, under subsection (1)(b), about the defendant from at least 1 health assessor who is a psychiatrist.
1 R v L [2022] NZHC 2556 [Results judgment]; and R v L [2022] NZHC 2815 [Reasons judgment].
[4] The standard of necessity that is prescribed by s 24(1)(b) sets a high threshold.2 It is not enough that an order might be expedient or desirable, but it need not be essential. Necessity has been described as falling between these two concepts.3
[5]The Court of Appeal described the public interest in this inquiry as follows:4
The interests of the public in this context are twofold. First, there is the need to be protected from further offending by the offender. The longer term public interest, and one that the offender obviously shares, is to ensure that the offender is managed and treated in a manner best calculated to achieve the ultimate goals of rehabilitation and reintegration into the community.
[6] I have the benefit of the disposition assessments of two psychiatrists which I now summarise.
Dr McDonnell’s disposition assessment
[7] Dr McDonnell’s earlier reports of 26 April, 7 July and 2 October 2022 comprehensively outline Mr Landkroon’s background and personal history, including his alcohol and drug history, medical history, medications, forensic history and history of violence and psychiatric history.
[8] In her 8 November 2022 disposition report, Dr McDonnell confirms that Mr Landkroon remains an inpatient at Te Whare Hohou Roko, Medium Secure Forensic Unit at Hillmorton Hospital. Dr McDonnell describes Mr Landkroon continuing to make slow but positive progress but confirms he remains distressed by ongoing psychotic symptoms, the most prominent of which involves the belief that others can read his thoughts. Dr McDonnell confirms a diagnosis of schizophrenia, alcohol, methamphetamine, synthetic cannabis and cannabis use disorder and a personality disorder. Mr Landkroon continues to meet the criteria for mental disorder under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992.
[9] Dr McDonnell describes a nexus between Mr Landkroon’s psychotic phenomena (predominantly command auditory hallucinations and thought
2 M (CA819/2011) v R [2012] NZCA 142 at [17, (2012) 28 FRNZ 773.
3 M (CA819/2011) v R above n 2, at [17].
4 M (CA819/2011) v R above n 2, at [7].
broadcasting, in addition to paranoid and persecutory beliefs) and the index offence, indicating the seriousness of the potential risk to others when Mr Landkroon is psychotic.
[10] Dr McDonnell opines that the intense and severe nature of Mr Landkroon’s psychotic symptoms and the subsequent extreme emotional and behavioural response to those phenomena indicate that he presents a high ongoing risk to others, having regard to his extensive history of paranoid schizophrenia. She opines that he has not yet demonstrated a capacity to manage his illness, notwithstanding management under the compulsory treatment order, which highlights the complications in managing Mr Landkroon’s care.
[11] In Dr McDonnell’s opinion, Mr Landkroon continues to present a high risk to the safety of others with the highest risk scenario involving a relapse of his psychotic illness in association with insufficient medical care, non-adherence to directed treatment and the use of alcohol or recreational drugs.
[12] For those reasons, Dr McDonnell’s clinical opinion is that Mr Landkroon requires ongoing placement in a secure hospital facility as a special patient.
Associate Professor Fould’s disposition assessment
[13] In his disposition report, Associate Professor Foulds refers to Mr Landkroon’s long history of contact with psychiatric services with an established diagnosis of schizophrenia. He observes that Mr Landkroon continues to have active psychotic symptoms despite 10 months of inpatient treatment. He agrees the defendant’s mental illness is complicated by severe addiction problems, homelessness, non-adherence to treatment and anti-social behaviours.
[14] Associate Professor Foulds opines that Mr Landkroon meets the criteria for a mixed severe personality disorder. He notes that Mr Landkroon’s degree of anti-social behaviour appears markedly less with the structure and support of secure forensic in- patient care than it was with his mental health care prior to the offence.
[15] Associate Professor Foulds points to Mr Landkroon’s psychotic state at the time of the offence, and his belief he was being persecuted by neighbours whom he believed spoke ill of him. He points to Mr Landkroon’s history of intensive and unstable relationships and to an extensive criminal history. He is of the view that within the community Mr Landkroon would not cope leading to a deterioration in his mental state with a high potential for further incidents of serious violence.
[16] In considering the appropriate option for disposition, Associate Professor Foulds observes that Mr Landkroon was involved in a very serious offence at a time when he was under the care of a General Adult Community Mental Health Team. Despite that care he was homeless, psychotic and was actively using substances. That the previous care failed leads Associate Professor Foulds to conclude that a much higher level of support and supervision is going to be necessary to protect the public from the risk posed by Mr Landkroon. In his opinion, the level of support and supervision necessary can only be provided by the making of a special patient order.
Discussion
[17] My reasons judgment of 31 October 2022 has set out the relevant circumstances of Mr Landkroon’s case.5
[18] Mr Landkroon has suffered for over two decades from schizophrenia. His mental illness has been complicated by his substance abuse and a severe personality disorder. His conduct that led to the tragic death of Ms Campbell on 12 January 2022 was quite irrational. Without motive and absent any explanation, Mr Landkroon engaged in a violent physical assault, repeatedly kicking Ms Campbell as she lay on the ground. Both prior to and following the incident he had made comments expressing his concern and care for, and his desire to save, Ms Campbell.
[19] Mr Landkroon engaged in violent and irrational conduct while under care. He continues to have active psychotic symptoms despite many months of inpatient
5 Reasons judgment, above n 1, at [10]–[19].
treatment. It is clear that more intensive care is necessary to manage the risk of repeat behaviour to ensure the protection of the public.
[20] I have considered the most serious nature of Mr Landkroon’s acts, and I accept the medical opinions as to the need for his long term and closely managed treatment.
[21] Ms Beaton, on behalf of Mr Landkroon, does not take issue with the recommendations of the health assessors. She has advised this morning that Associate Professor Foulds has spoken directly with Mr Landkroon and explained the consequences of a special patient finding. In effect Mr Landkroon consents to the making of an order under s 24(2)(a) of the Act that he be detained in a hospital as a special patient. Mrs Currie also supports the findings of the health assessors that Mr Landkroon should be detained as a special patient.
[22] I find myself in agreement. I am satisfied that I have sufficient information on the condition of Mr Landkroon to make an order under s 24. Having considered all the circumstances of the case and the evidence of Associate Professor Foulds and Dr McDonnell I am satisfied an order is necessary in the interests of public safety. I, therefore, make an order under s 24(2)(a) of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act that Mr Landkroon be detained in a hospital as a special patient under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992.
[23] I record that the interim order for suppression of Mr Landkroon’s name has now lapsed.
Observation
[24] I am conscious that members of Ms Campbell’s family are present and I am conscious that members of her family may be concerned or perhaps frustrated that I have not, either in my reasons judgment or within this disposition judgment, made reference to the questions raised by Mrs Currie and the evidence given by the health assessors as to any failings in Mr Landkroon’s care prior to 12 January 2022. I trust that Ms Campbell’s family understand that those questions are quite a distinct issue to those that the Court is required to consider in determining whether a defendant is fit
to stand trial, and if so, how to deal with that person. As I indicated during the course of the fitness hearing, there will inevitably be a coronial inquiry into the death of Ms Campbell, and I understand there will be, or has been, an internal inquiry within the Canterbury District Health Board (now known as Te Whatu Ora) as to Mr Landkroon’s care. Those are the proper forums for that inquiry.
[25] I extend my deepest sympathy to Rose’s family and I thank them for the dignified manner in which they have participated in this proceeding.
...................................................
Eaton J
Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor’s Office, Christchurch
Copy to:
Kerryn Beaton KC, Barrister, Christchurch
0
0
0