R v MT - [2020] NZHC 1490

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF CONNECTED PERSONS PURSUANT TO S 202 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF DEFENDANT PURSUANT TO S 200 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2018-092-7843

[2020] NZHC 1490

THE QUEEN

v

MT

Hearing:
6 May 2020

(Further submissions filed: 22 May 2020 and 25 May 2020)

Counsel:

N E Walker and J C Toebes for Crown

M N Pecotic and D S Niven for Defendant

Judgment:

30 June 2020

JUDGMENT OF BREWER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 30 June 2020 at 11:00 am Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:
Kayes Fletcher Walker (Manukau) for Crown Maria Pecotic (Auckland) for Defendant

R v MT [2020] NZHC 1490 [30 June 2020]

Introduction

[1] MT was charged with kidnapping and murder. She was scheduled to stand trial with two co-defendants from 2 September 2019. In a decision delivered on 26 August 2019, Downs J held that although MT was mentally impaired she was fit to stand trial.1 MT appealed the finding that she was fit to stand trial, arguing that Downs J had failed to adequately consider the implications of her foetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD) on her fitness to stand trial. On 3 September 2019, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and quashed Downs J’s finding.2

[2] The trial of MT’s two co-defendants proceeded. At different points they pleaded guilty to the charge of kidnapping. The jury found both of them guilty on the charge of murder. They have been sentenced.3

[3]This judgment determines what should now become of MT.

Background

[4] MT was found unfit to stand trial before the trial itself had commenced. The next step is prescribed by s 10 of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 (CPMIP):

10 Inquiry before trial into defendant’s involvement in the offence

(1)This section applies if, before trial, the defendant is found unfit to stand trial.

(2)The court must decide whether the court is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the evidence against the defendant is sufficient to establish that the defendant caused the act or omission that forms the basis of the offence with which the defendant is charged.

(3)For the purposes of subsection (2), the court may consider—

(a)any formal statements that have been filed under section 85 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011:

1      R v M [2019] NZHC 2104.
2      M (CA424/2019) v R [2019] NZCA 410. Reasons were released in a separate judgment dated 17 September 2019.
3      R v Winter & Te Amo [2020] NZHC 1115.

(b)any oral evidence that has been taken in accordance with an order made under section 92 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011:

(c)any other evidence that is submitted by the prosecutor or defendant.

[5] The purpose of the s 10 test is to avoid the possibility that…

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 MT

Details

AGLC: R v MT [2020] NZHC 1490
Case: [2020] NZHC 1490
Decision Date: 30 June 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v MT involved a young woman charged with kidnapping and murder. The trial of her two co-defendants had already concluded, with both found guilty of the charges. MT, who was found unfit to stand trial due to mental impairment, was subject to a hearing under section 10 of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 to determine if there was sufficient evidence to establish her involvement in the offences. The High Court found that MT was responsible for the acts that constituted the offences and ordered her detention as a special care recipient under the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003. The decision was based on the severity of the offences, MT's risk of reoffending, and her deceptive behaviour. The Court also granted permanent name suppression for MT, with the condition that the suppression would not apply if she were to be found fit to stand trial in the future.

Orders