R v R HC Napier CRI-2004-020-863

[2005] NZHC 156

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

CRI-2004-020-863

THE QUEEN

v

C   R

Hearing:         28 October 2005 (Heard at Wellington)

Appearances: S B Manning for the prisoner

R J Collins for the Crown

Judgment:      28 October 2005

SENTENCE OF MACKENZIE J

C R  

[1]      You were found not guilty by reason of insanity at your recent trial for the murder of your wife.   Inquiries have been made to determine the most suitable method of dealing with you under s 24 or s 25 of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003.  I now have the benefit of that report and I must now determine the most suitable method of dealing with you and make an order accordingly.   I record that the Court has sufficient information as a result of this report to deal with the matter.

[2]      I must consider all the circumstances of the case, and I will refer to those briefly.  You and your wife had settled in New Zealand some years ago after your

R V R  HC NAP CRI-2004-020-863  28 October 2005

marriage.  For some time prior to these events you had been living with your wife and your two young children in Waipukurau, where you were running a dairy and looking after the two children while your wife was working as a veterinarian.  It is clear from the evidence that was called at your trial that you had earned the respect and friendship of that community.  Unfortunately, towards the end of 2003 or early in 2004 you developed a serious mental illness.  Both of the psychiatrists who were called and gave evidence at your trial were agreed that you were suffering from paranoid delusional disorder and also had a major depressive illness which had developed over a period of some months.  One manifestation of that illness was that you developed delusions as to your wife’s infidelity.  It is right that I should say that there was no rational basis for your suspicions.  They were the result entirely of the mental illness from which you were suffering.

[3]      On the night of 19th and 20th March 2004 that illness came to a head in a most tragic way.  You thought that you heard an intruder who you thought was a person who had come to visit your wife in the middle of the night.  You decided to confront your wife with your suspicions and you did so over a period of time.  You took a baseball bat and you were hitting your wife with that bat.  In the course of that, you lost  control  –  you  said  when  your  wife  gave  you  names  which  in  your  mind confirmed your suspicions.  You beat her several times very savagely with that bat, and the injuries inflicted by that assault, together with manual strangulation of which the pathologist found evidence in his post mortem examination, caused your wife’s death, and she died immediately at the scene.  Shortly after that, you contacted the police and you admitted these events.

[4]      This is a most tragic case.  The outcome has been tragic for all concerned: for your wife, of course, who lost her life as a result of your attack; for your two young children, who at the time had returned temporarily to visit relatives in India but have had to remain in India and have lost in effect both parents as a result of this incident; and for yourself the outcome has been tragic.   From a position of respect in the community, which you had developed, you have now lost your wife, your children and your place in that community.

[5]      I must also consider the evidence which is before me as to whether your detention as a special patient under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992 is necessary, and I must make an order to that effect if I am satisfied that the making of the order is necessary in the interests of the public or of any persons who might be affected by the decision.

[6]      The violence which your mental illness has induced is such that this Court could not run the risk of releasing you from care until those responsible for your care are satisfied that you are cured of your illness and that the risk of conduct such as that  which  was  involved  in  this  incident  will  not  be  repeated  -  there  can  be confidence that that conduct will not be repeated.

[7]      Accordingly, I am satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of the public that the course recommended by Dr Duncan be adopted and that you be detained as a special patient under s 24(2)(a) of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003.  As Dr Duncan says:

Status as a Special Patient under this section confers checks and balances and results in the supervision of the Ministry of Health through the period of [your] rehabilitation.

I agree with Dr Duncan’s assessment that this would be of continued benefit to you and to the safety of the community.

[8]      The report indicates that over time you have responded to treatment with a considerable resolution of your symptomatology.   I express the hope that that response to treatment will continue and that you can be cured of this dreadful illness which has afflicted you; but clearly until that is the case the only proper course is for you to be detained.

[9]      Accordingly,  there  will  be  an  order  under  s  24(2)(a)  of  the  Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 that you be detained in a hospital as  a  special  patient  under  the  Mental  Health  (Compulsory  Assessment  and Treatment) Act 1992.

“A D MacKenzie J”

Solicitors

Crown Solicitor, Napier, for the Crown