Legal Research
Cases
R v Rafferty

R v Rafferty

Case [2022] NZHC 642 1 April 2022

Criminal Liability

Mens Rea & Intention

Limitation Periods

Admissibility of Evidence

Expert Evidence

Injunction

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME(S), ADDRESS(ES), OCCUPATION(S) OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF WITNESS- PURSUANT TO S 202 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2020-090-002204

[2022] NZHC 642

THE QUEEN

v

RICKY JAMES RAFFERTY

Hearing: 21-25 March 2022

Appearances:

H Steele and E Rangamuwa for the Crown P Davey and A Watt for Mr Rafferty

Judgment:

1 April 2022

JUDGMENT OF WYLIE J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Wylie On 1 April 22 at 3.00 pm
Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:…………………………

Solicitors/counsel:
Meredith Connell, Auckland P Davey, Auckland

R v RAFFERTY [2022] NZHC 642 [1 April 2022]

Introduction

[1] The deceased, Angela Smith, was killed some time during the evening of 13 May 2020. She had sustained a severe beating and she had been both stabbed and cut with a knife or knives. She died from multiple blunt and sharp force injuries.

[2] The defendant, Ricky Rafferty, and William Heremaia were jointly charged with Ms Smith’s murder.

[3] Mr Rafferty has been found unfit to stand trial pursuant to s 8A of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 (the CPMIPA).1 His involvement in what occurred now falls to be determined pursuant to s 10(2) of that Act.

[4] On 10 August 2021, a jury found his co-defendant, Mr Heremaia, guilty of manslaughter.

The scope of the s 10(2) involvement hearing

[5]Section 10(2) of the CPMIPA provides as follows:

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

…

(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.

[6] If the Court is satisfied, to the prescribed standard, that the evidence against Mr Rafferty is sufficient to establish that he caused the act or omissions that form the basis of the offence of murder (or the included offence of manslaughter), then there will be a disposition hearing under subpart 3 of the CPMIPA to determine how to deal with Mr Rafferty.2 If the Court is not so satisfied, it will be required to dismiss the charge.3

1      R v Rafferty [2021] NZHC 1143.
2      Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003, s 23.
3      Section 13(2).

[7]The purpose of s 10(2) is:4

… to avoid the possibility of a person who is found unfit to stand trial being subjected to detention or similar measures in circumstances where he or she has not, in fact, committed an offence.

[8] The scope of the s 10(2) enquiry has been the subject of some debate, both judicial and academic.

[9] In R v Ardler, the Court of Appeal in the Australian Capital Territory considered the Australian equivalent of s 10(2) and set out three possible interpretations of the phrase “the acts that constitute the offence charged”, namely:5

(a)proof…

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 Rafferty

Details

AGLC: R v Rafferty [2022] NZHC 642
Case: [2022] NZHC 642
Decision Date: 1 April 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In R v Rafferty, the High Court of New Zealand was tasked with determining whether the defendant, Ricky Rafferty, was involved in the assault on Angela Smith, which resulted in her death. Rafferty and William Heremaia were jointly charged with Smith's murder, but Rafferty was found unfit to stand trial due to mental impairments. The court had to decide whether the evidence against Rafferty was sufficient to establish his involvement in the offence charged. The court found that Rafferty's DNA was present on two of the five knives seized from the crime scene, along with Smith's DNA, and his bloody footprints were found both inside and outside the unit. Rafferty's DNA was also found under Smith's fingernails, indicating close personal contact. Furthermore, Smith's blood was found on Rafferty's clothing, and his lies about his involvement in the assault were considered. The court concluded that the evidence pointed strongly to Rafferty's involvement in the assault on Smith, which resulted in her death.

The court ordered that inquiries be made to determine the most suitable way of dealing with Rafferty under the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003. Rafferty was remanded to the Mason Clinic, and a disposition hearing was scheduled to be held within 30 days of the judgment. The court directed the Registrar to contact the health assessors who evaluated Rafferty for the fitness for trial hearing to obtain reports, if possible, to assist in the disposition hearing.

Orders