R v M CA370/03

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand heard an appeal in the case of R v [W L M]. The appellant, who suffered from bipolar disorder, was subject to a compulsory treatment order. He had sexual contact with a minor and disclosed this to his doctor, Dr Matete, who subsequently informed the police. The appellant later gave a confession to the police. The central issue was whether the statements made by the accused were admissible in court. Specifically, the appellant's counsel argued that the confession was inadmissible due to a breach of section 33 of the Evidence Amendment Act (No 2) 1980, or alternatively, that the confession should be excluded on the grounds of unfairness.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, confirming that the statements were admissible. The court held that section 33 was irrelevant as the Crown had assured the court that Dr Matete would not be called to testify, and thus, there was no need for the accused's consent under that section. Moreover, the court found that Dr Matete did not breach any statutory or common law duty of confidentiality when he informed the police about the appellant's confession. The disclosure was justified under the Health Information Privacy Code 1994, either because the accused consented to the disclosure or because it was necessary to prevent a serious and imminent threat to public safety.

The Court of Appeal observed that the trial court had not examined whether the appellant's rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 had been properly communicated to him, considering his mental disorder. However, the court did not find any breach of the Bill of Rights or suggest that the statement may be inadmissible on that ground. The court's decision confirmed the admissibility of the accused's statements, although for reasons different from those articulated by the trial judge.