R v Mateparae - [2014] NZHC 893

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI-2013-091-376 [2014] NZHC 893

THE QUEEN

v

TE WERA MATEPARAE

Hearing: 30 April 2014

Counsel:

G J Burston for Crown
I M Antunovic for Defendant

Judgment:

2 May 2014

JUDGMENT OF WILLIAMS J

Introduction

[1] Mr Mateparae is charged with attempted murder and unlawful sexual connection in relation to events on 10 February 2014.

[2] Expert psychiatrists Professor Brinded and Dr Barry-Walsh agree that Mr Mateparae was suffering from a disease of the mind such that, on the balance of probabilities, he was insane at the time of the offending within the meaning of s 23 of the Crimes Act 1961. The Crown agrees that the only reasonable verdict that would follow at trial is that Mr Mateparae is not guilty on account of his insanity.

[3] Based on that consensus, the provisions of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 (the CPMIP Act) are engaged. Section 20(2) requires me to hold a hearing to determine whether Mr Mateparae was insane at the time of
the offending in terms of s 23 of the Crimes Act, based on expert evidence.

R v MATEPARAE [2014] NZHC 893 [2 May 2014]

[4] The issues I will address in this judgment are as follows:

(a) whether, on the basis of expert evidence, I am satisfied that Mr Mateparae was, on the balance of probabilities, insane within the meaning of s 23 of the Crimes Act at the time of the offending;

(b) if I am satisfied of this then I must decide the best way to deal with

Mr Mateparae going forward; and

(c) whether Mr Mateparae’s name suppression will continue beyond this point.

[5] I will consider these issues in that order after setting out the facts and dealing with some preliminary matters.

The offending

[6] At about 9.00am on Sunday 10 February 2013 Mr Mateparae was on the Kenepuru Stream Walkway and allegedly approached the victim from behind, grabbed her and groped her chest, abdomen and upper thigh area.

[7] The victim began to scream and Mr Mateparae forced his hand into the victim’s mouth to stop her from screaming. The victim bit his hand, but he forced it further into her mouth and dislodged a tooth in the process. After a continued period of struggle the victim and defendant fell onto the walkway. The defendant then placed one hand around the defendant’s neck and began to strangle her. The victim was still able to scream.

[8] While strangling her, the defendant tried to put his other hand down the victim’s shorts but she was able to curl her legs in such a way as to stop him. He then told her “shut up bitch, let me do it”. The victim could no longer breathe due to the maintained pressure on her throat. She relaxed her legs and the defendant penetrated her vagina with some force with all of his fingers.

[9] He then placed his other hand around the victim’s…

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 Mateparae

Details

AGLC: R v Mateparae [2014] NZHC 893
Case: [2014] NZHC 893
Decision Date: 2 May 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Mr. Te Wera Mateparae was charged with attempted murder and unlawful sexual connection following an incident on 10 February 2014. Both the Crown and the defence agreed that Mr. Mateparae was suffering from a disease of the mind and was, therefore, insane within the meaning of s 23 of the Crimes Act 1961 at the time of the offending. Consequently, the court had to determine whether Mr. Mateparae was, on the balance of probabilities, insane at the time of the offence and, if so, what was the most suitable method of dealing with him going forward.

The court found that the experts' opinions were in agreement that Mr. Mateparae was suffering from a severe mental disorder and was unable to understand the nature and quality of his actions or know that they were morally wrong. The experts also noted that Mr. Mateparae's condition had been untreated for some time, which exacerbated his violent and sexual visions and hallucinations. The court was satisfied, on the basis of expert evidence, that Mr. Mateparae was insane at the time of the offending within the meaning of s 23 of the Crimes Act.

Regarding the most suitable method of dealing with Mr. Mateparae, both experts agreed that he should be detained in a hospital as a special patient under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992. The experts considered that the severity of the attack, the seriousness of Mr. Mateparae's illness, and his need for treatment meant that a special patient order was the only rational conclusion. The court was satisfied that it was in the interests of the public to make an order under s 24(2)(a) of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003, and accordingly, ordered that Mr. Mateparae be detained in a hospital as a special patient.

Finally, the court dismissed Mr. Mateparae's application for permanent name suppression, stating that the open justice principle should prevail, and the public's right to know about Mr. Mateparae and to take appropriate steps to guard against any threat he may pose was a significant consideration. The court considered that the risk of extreme hardship to Mr. Mateparae and the community due to publication was speculative and could not meet the statutory threshold for suppression.

Orders