R v Rahman - [2018] NZHC 1808

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2008-090-009921 [2018] NZHC 1808

THE QUEEN

v

BOUSHRA RAHMAN

Hearing: 20 July 2018

Counsel:

E Woolley for the Crown
D Niven and P Winter (off-site) for the Defendant

Judgment:

20 July 2018

DISPOSITION JUDGMENT OF WOOLFORD J

Solicitors / Counsel: Crown Solicitor, Auckland D Niven, Auckland

R v RAHMAN [2018] NZHC 1808 [20 July 2018]

Introduction

[1] Ms Rahman has been charged with the murder of her sister. She is, however, unfit to stand trial. I must now determine the most suitable method of dealing with her under ss 24 and 25 of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act
2003.

A brief history of events

[2] Ms Rahman was charged with her sister’s murder on 13 October 2008. On

25 May 2010, she was found unfit to stand trial. On 29 June 2010, an order was made detaining her as a special patient under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992.

[3] The Director of Area Mental Health Services directed that Ms Rahman’s status be changed to special care recipient, under the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003, in January 2012. She was transferred from the Mason Clinic in Auckland to the Haumietiketike Unit in Porirua.

[4] On 3 September 2015, the Attorney-General directed that Ms Rahman be brought before the appropriate court as a certificate had been given under the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act that she was no longer unfit to stand trial.

[5] Following some delay, on 16 May 2016, she was found fit to stand trial in the

District Court. She was committed for trial in the High Court at Auckland. But, on

8 May 2018, I found Ms Rahman unfit to stand trial, once again.1 My judgment of that date outlines Ms Rahman’s illnesses and disabilities, and several reports, in detail. I do not repeat that information here.

The law

[6] When a person has been found unfit to stand trial, the Court must conduct a disposition hearing.2 The purpose of that hearing is to determine the most appropriate way of dealing with the defendant under ss 24 and 25 of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act.

[7] First, the Court must determine whether it is necessary to make one of the orders listed in s 24(2). There are two options in that sub-section:

(a) An order that the defendant be detained in a hospital as a special patient under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act.

(b)An order that the defendant be detained in a secure facility as a special care recipient under the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act.

[8] The Court must consider all the circumstances of the case in determining the appropriate order.3 It must also consider the evidence of one or more health assessors as to whether the detention of the defendant in accordance with one of the orders specified in 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 Rahman

Details

AGLC: R v Rahman [2018] NZHC 1808
Case: [2018] NZHC 1808
Decision Date: 20 July 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of R v Rahman concerns the defendant, Ms Rahman, who has been charged with the murder of her sister but has been found unfit to stand trial. The court must determine the most suitable method of dealing with her under sections 24 and 25 of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003. Ms Rahman has been detained as a special patient since May 2010, and the court must now decide whether this order should continue or if an alternative form of order under section 25 should be made.

The legal issues before the court include whether it is necessary to make an order under section 24(2) that Ms Rahman be detained as a special patient and whether suppression of her name should be permanent. The court must also consider media applications for access to documents in this proceeding.

The court found that it was necessary to make an order under section 24(2)(a) that Ms Rahman be detained as a special patient under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992. This decision was based on Ms Rahman's risk to others, risk to herself, the complexity of her issues, and the need for additional oversight in her care. The court also declined to order permanent name suppression, finding that the principle of open justice should not be overridden in this case. Finally, the court granted limited access to documents for media applications, while protecting Ms Rahman's privacy interests.

The final order made by the court is that Ms Rahman is to be detained as a special patient under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992, with leave reserved for the defendant's counsel to file a further memorandum on the issue of a stay of the outstanding charge.

Orders