R v M - [2014] NZHC 605

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 204 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY

CRI-2013-025-001947 [2014] NZHC 605

THE QUEEN

v

SUCHARITTA MILTON

Hearing: 26 March 2014

Appearances: M-J Thomas for the Crown
T W Fournier for the Defendant

Judgment: 26 March 2014

ORAL JUDGMENT OF PANCKHURST J

Introduction

[1] Mrs Milton, you are charged that on 2 September you attempted to murder your daughter, N Milton. Belatedly, yesterday there was an application to amend the charge and that is a question which I have discussed with counsel, but I do not propose to deal with that application at the moment, although I will in a further judgment to be delivered in due course.

[2] Mr Fournier seeks a finding of insanity pursuant to s 20(2) of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 (the Act). The Crown accepts that a finding of insanity is appropriate in your case, Mrs Milton. Today, I have heard some expert evidence from Dr Bathgate and Professor Brinded concerning the illness
from which you suffered at the time of this tragic event and also concerning the

R v MILTON [2014] NZHC 605 [26 March 2014]

disposition of your case. As a result of what I have read and the evidence that has been given this morning, I am in a position to make a finding and also to deal with disposition.

The factual background

[3] Firstly, it is necessary to detail the factual background. There is no dispute as to what happened on 2 September last. An agreed summary of facts has been provided. N was born at Invercargill on 9 August 2013. You and your husband had been married at that time for nine years. I note that you were 32 years of age, that you were born in Thailand and that N was your first child.

[4] In the early hours of Monday 2 September you and your husband were both up. The baby was unsettled; there had been feeding and some other difficulties. At about 5.00 am you suggested to your husband that he should go outside for a walk. He left the room for a short time, but not the house. Upon returning to the living room he was confronted with an awful scene. N had been grievously injured with a knife and you were in the process of harming yourself using the knife. He uplifted the baby, endeavoured to assist her and at the same time was successful in moving you into the dining area of the house.

[5] From there Mr Milton made a 111 call. While awaiting the arrival of the police and an ambulance, he momentarily went outside to open a gate. Upon return he found that you had armed yourself with another knife and were again endeavouring to harm yourself.

[6] N sustained a very serious wound as a result of which she was initially treated locally but then transferred to Starship…

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 M

Details

AGLC: R v M [2014] NZHC 605
Case: [2014] NZHC 605
Decision Date: 26 March 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Milton involves Sucharita Milton, who was charged with attempting to murder her daughter, N Milton. The case was heard in the High Court of New Zealand at Invercargill Registry. The central legal issue was whether Sucharita Milton was insane at the time of the alleged offence, as per section 20(2) of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003. Both the defence and the Crown agreed that Milton was not guilty by reason of insanity. The court had to determine if Milton was suffering from a disease of the mind that rendered her incapable of understanding the nature and quality of her acts or knowing they were morally wrong. The court, after considering expert psychiatric evidence, concluded that Milton was indeed suffering from a severe mental disorder, specifically post-partum psychosis, which incapacitated her understanding of the morality of her actions. Therefore, the court found Milton not guilty on the grounds of insanity. In terms of disposition, the court decided that despite Milton's current stability and support system, the risk of relapse warranted a community treatment order under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992 to ensure ongoing treatment and monitoring. The specifics of the order will be determined in due course.

Orders