R v Rawson - [2019] NZHC 1837

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2018-063-2383

[2019] NZHC 1837

THE QUEEN

v

MARK ANDREW RAWSON

Hearing: 31 July 2019

Appearances:

A Gordon for the Crown

L Te Kani for the Defendant

Judgment:

31 July 2019

ORAL JUDGMENT OF POWELL J

[Disposition Hearing]

R v RAWSON [2019] NZHC 1837 [31 July 2019]

[1] Mark Rawson comes before the Court today to determine his final disposition having been found not guilty by reason of insanity on one charge of attempted murder and two charges of assaulting with a blunt instrument; all charges having taken place at an incident on 2 July 2018.1

[2] The purpose of today’s disposition hearing is to determine whether or not Mr Rawson should become a special patient pursuant to s 24(2)(a) of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003, or whether there are other orders pursuant to ss 24 and 25 of the Act that are more appropriate.2

[3] To this end a report has been obtained from Dr Peter Dean, a consultant psychiatrist with Midland Regional Forensic Psychiatric Service. In his report Dr Dean set out the record of his examination of Mr Rawson on 5 July 2019, before confirming a diagnosis of schizophrenia and noting in particular:

Mr Rawson has an abnormal state of mind characterised by intermittent symptoms of delusions, disorders of mood, perception and cognition. As a consequence of his abnormal state of mind he has posed a serious risk to the safety of others, particularly evident by his criminal charges. He is therefore mentally disordered as defined by section 2 of Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992.

[4]With regard to the appropriate disposition Dr Dean set out:

As a result of his mental disorder, Mr Rawson requires ongoing compulsory care. I note the events leading to his arrest leading to charges of attempted murder. He used weapons to assault both his father and stepmother in the context of acute psychotic symptoms. In this context he posed a serious risk to the safety of the public. I note Mr Rawson has not previously taken psychiatric medication in the community and did not take psychiatric medication when discharged from inpatient care to the prison. His condition quickly relapsed. He does appear to have improved significantly and gained some insight into his condition and the need for treatment. However, he has not been tested outside of an inpatient setting to determine whether his adherence to medication can be sustained. He struggles to identify early warning signs of relapse and therefore there is some doubt as to whether he would be able to seek help should his condition deteriorate. He has not been tested in a community setting to ensure his motivation to remain abstinent from cannabis remains. It is not yet clear how he will respond to the pressures of community living. It is likely he will require a gradual transition into community living in order to ensure the…

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 Rawson

Details

AGLC: R v Rawson [2019] NZHC 1837
Case: [2019] NZHC 1837
Decision Date: 31 July 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Rawson, Mark Andrew Rawson was found not guilty by reason of insanity on charges of attempted murder and two counts of assaulting with a blunt instrument. The incident in question occurred on 2 July 2018, and the disposition hearing took place on 31 July 2019. The court was tasked with determining whether Mr Rawson should be detained as a special patient under the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003, or if alternative orders under sections 24 and 25 of the Act were more appropriate. This decision was based on the psychiatric evaluations and the potential risks to public safety.

The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate disposition for Mr Rawson, considering his mental health status and the potential danger he posed to the community. Dr Peter Dean, a consultant psychiatrist, concluded that Mr Rawson required ongoing compulsory care due to his diagnosis of schizophrenia and the serious risk he posed to the safety of others. Dr Dean recommended that Mr Rawson should be detained as a special patient, considering his history of non-compliance with medication and the uncertainty of his ability to maintain adherence to treatment outside a hospital setting. Both counsel agreed with Dr Dean's recommendation, emphasizing the need for additional oversight to ensure public safety.

The court, after considering the psychiatric reports and the arguments presented by both counsel, determined that the extra protection afforded by an order under section 24(2)(a) of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 was necessary. The court was particularly concerned about the potential for Mr Rawson's condition to deteriorate if he did not maintain his medication, and the uncertainty about his ability to remain abstinent from cannabis. Given these factors, the court concluded that an order under section 24(2)(a) was appropriate to protect both the public and Mr Rawson himself. Consequently, the court ordered that Mr Rawson be detained in hospital as a special patient under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992.

Orders