R v Rawson - [2019] NZHC 1381

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 1381

THE QUEEN

v

MARK ANDREW RAWSON

Hearing: 18 June 2019

Appearances:

A Gordon for Informant L Te Kani for Defendant

Judgment:

18 June 2019

ORAL JUDGMENT OF TOOGOOD J

R v RAWSON [2019] NZHC 1381 [18 June 2019]

Introduction

[1] Mark Rawson faces one charge of attempted murder1 and two charges of assault with a weapon.2 He has pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity.3 The purpose of today’s hearing under the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 (the CP(MIP) Act) is to determine whether the Court can be satisfied on the basis of expert evidence that Mr Rawson was insane at the time of the offending.4 The Crown and the defence agree that he is. My role is to act as a check on that concurrence.5

The facts

[2] The background facts giving rise to the charge are contained in an agreed summary prepared for today’s hearing.

[3] In the early hours of 2 July 2018, Mr Rawson was at home with his family at an address in Rotorua. Mr Rawson was 19 at the time. He and his brother were watching television. At a certain point, the brothers began to argue and Mr Rawson’s brother called out for help. This attracted the attention of their father, who came into the room.

[4] Mr Rawson’s father approached Mr Rawson in an attempt to calm him down. Mr Rawson took up a large branch that was beside the fireplace and swung it at his father with all his might, yelling out that he was going to kill him. Mr Rawson’s father managed to avoid the blow. But Mr Rawson swung at him again, this time connecting with his shoulder. Mr Rawson then struck his father again in the same place.

[5] At this point, Mr Rawson’s stepmother, Ms Knox, came into the room. She implored Mr Rawson to leave his father alone. Mr Rawson turned his attention to Ms Knox, striking her multiple times with the branch. He then let go of the branch and said that he would stop; but he did not relent. Instead, he took up a pair of scissors

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 173; the maximum penalty is 14 years’ imprisonment.
2      Section 202C; the maximum penalty is five years’ imprisonment.
3      Crimes Act 1961, s 23.
4      Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003, s 20(2)(c).
5      R v Tu [2015] NZHC 3045 at [12].

from the mantelpiece and swung them at Ms Knox, striking her on the hip. Ms Knox retreated, but Mr Rawson pursued her. There was a scuffle during which Ms Knox managed to grab Mr Rawson by the wrist, but he responded by taking hold of her hair. He then attempted to stab Ms Knox in the temple. Mr Rawson landed three blows to Ms Knox’s person: one to the left cheek, one to the left ear…

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 1381
Case: [2019] NZHC 1381
Decision Date: 18 June 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mark Rawson has been charged with attempted murder and two counts of assault with a weapon. He has pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity. The court must determine whether Rawson was insane at the time of the offending. The legal issue before the court is whether Rawson was suffering from a disease of the mind and if that disease meant that he was incapable of knowing the nature and quality of the act or that the act was morally wrong. The court considered the evidence of three psychiatrists, who diagnosed Rawson with schizophrenia. The psychiatrists concluded that Rawson was experiencing florid psychotic symptoms at the time of the offending, which impaired his ability to know the nature and quality of the act or that the act was morally wrong. The court accepted the evidence of the psychiatrists and found that Rawson was insane at the time of the offending. The court ordered inquiries to determine the most suitable method of dealing with Rawson under the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003.
The court found Rawson not guilty by reason of insanity and ordered inquiries to determine the most suitable method of dealing with him under the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003.

Orders