R v Mason - [2018] NZHC 2116

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2018-070-788

[2018] NZHC 2116

THE QUEEN

v

TAMATI HAKARAIA MASON

Hearing: 17 August 2018

Appearances:

A Pollett for Crown

A C Balme and T R Bayley for Defendant

Judgment:

17 August 2018

JUDGMENT OF LANG J

[on hearing conducted under s 20(2) of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003]

This judgment was delivered by me on 17 August 2018 at 3.30 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date……………

R v MASON [2018] NZHC 2116 [17 August 2018]

[1] Mr Mason is charged with the murder of Ms Ariana Mahu on 22 February 2018. He has raised a defence based on insanity. As a result, I have conducted a hearing under s 20 of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 (the Act) to determine whether he should be found not guilty of the charge on the ground of insanity.

The Crown case

[2] The facts giving rise to the charges were very recently outlined by Edwards J when she conducted hearings under ss 9 and 14 of the Act to determine whether Mr Mason was fit to plead and stand trial.1 I gratefully adopt her summary of the Crown case.

[3] Shortly after 11.30 pm on 22 February 2018, Ms Mahu was helping others in the kitchen area of a marae whilst a tangi was in process. Mr Mason had also been at the marae for most of the day. Mr Mason knew Ms Mahu and had spent time with her and her whanau earlier that day.

[4] The Crown alleges that, with no prior warning, Mr Mason approached Ms Mahu holding a large knife he had picked up from the kitchen. He then proceeded to stab her several times in and around her neck. Ms Mahu tried to escape, but eventually fell to the floor. As she lay on the floor, Mr Mason continued to attack her. Others in the vicinity attempted to intervene, but Mr Mason confronted them whilst still holding the knife. He eventually left the building but was followed by those who had witnessed what had occurred. He was eventually overpowered and restrained until the police arrived.

[5] Tragically, Ms Mahu died at the scene. When the police interviewed Mr Mason about his role in causing her death, he admitted having picked up the knife with the intention of stabbing and killing Ms Mahu. He also spoke about Ms Mahu disrespecting him and his family, and spoke about the involvement of a mākutu. Mr Mason was clearly aware he had killed Ms Mahu. He showed no signs of remorse,

1 R v Mason [2018] NZHC 2063.

and told police he was relieved about what had happened and was prepared to face the
consequences.

The law

[6]Section 20 of the Act relevantly provides:

20 Finding of insanity

…

(2)Before or at a trial, the Judge must record a finding…

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 Mason

Details

AGLC: R v Mason [2018] NZHC 2116
Case: [2018] NZHC 2116
Decision Date: 17 August 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of R v Mason was heard to determine whether the defendant, Tamati Hakaraia Mason, could be acquitted on the ground of insanity for the murder of Ms Ariana Mahu. The defendant has raised the defence of insanity, and the court conducted a hearing under section 20 of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 to decide whether he should be found not guilty of the charge on the ground of insanity. The court was required to determine whether the defendant was labouring under a disease of the mind at the time of the offence, and if so, whether this disease caused him not to understand the nature and quality of his acts, or if it resulted in him not knowing that the act of killing was morally wrong.

After considering the expert evidence from two psychiatrists, the court found that the defendant was indeed labouring under a disease of the mind, specifically schizophrenia, at the time of the offence. The court was satisfied that the disease of the mind resulted in the defendant not knowing that the act of killing was morally wrong, having regard to the commonly accepted standards of right and wrong. Consequently, the court recorded a finding of insanity under section 20(2) of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003.

In determining the appropriate disposition for the defendant, the court considered the views of the psychiatrists and the interests of the public. Both psychiatrists were in agreement that the defendant should be detained as a special patient under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992 to ensure his proper treatment and to protect the safety of the community. The court was satisfied that this was the only realistic option and therefore made an order under section 24(2)(a) of the Act that the defendant be detained in a hospital as a special patient.

Orders