R v S - [2021] NZHC 2152

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF VICTIM OR CONNECTED PERSONS PURSUANT TO S 202 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CRI-2021-085-921

[2021] NZHC 2152

THE QUEEN

v

S

Hearing: 13 December 2021

Appearances:

S C Carter for the Crown

P H Mitchell and D W E Dowsett for the Defendant

Judgment:

13 December 2021

ORAL JUDGMENT OF COOKE J

[1] The defendant has appeared this morning and entered a plea of not guilty on the grounds of insanity to the charge that on 24 April 2021 he murdered his mother.

[2] At previous hearings of these proceedings the defendant was assessed as unfit to plead, but the psychiatric evidence now before the Court from Dr Hansby and Dr Barry-Walsh advises that he would be fit to stand trial provided that certain steps were taken. For the purpose of s 8A of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 I accept he is now fit to stand trial. In taking his plea I have also spoken to him and satisfied myself that he understands the plea that he has entered and its implications.

R v S [2021] NZHC 2152 [13 December 2021]

[3] The Court now needs to address three matters. First I must take the assessments that are involved in accepting the plea and finding the defendant not guilty on the grounds of insanity. Secondly, the Court needs to make decisions on how the matter now needs to be addressed, including whether the defendant should now be detained in a hospital as a special patient under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992. Finally the Court needs to determine whether there should be permanent name suppression granted in the circumstances of this case. There are comprehensive interim suppression orders in effect for the time being.

Accepting the plea of not guilty on the grounds of insanity

[4] I first address whether I should accept the plea that the defendant is not guilty on the grounds of insanity.

[5] I must first find that it has been proved by the Crown to the usual standard that the defendant committed the acts that have led to the murder charge. The defendant must then satisfy me on the balance of probabilities that he had a disease of the mind to such an extent that he was incapable of knowing that what he was doing was wrong.

[6] I have been provided with detailed reports of three psychiatrists, Dr Hansby, Dr Barry-Walsh and Professor Mellsop. Dr Hansby has given evidence before me this morning. All three have discussed the defendant in detail, and all three have reached the conclusion that the defendant was insane within the meaning of s 23 of the Crimes Act 1961 when he killed his mother.

[7] Formal written statements have been admitted under s 9 of the Evidence Act 2006 in addition to the expert…

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 S

Details

AGLC: R v S [2021] NZHC 2152
Case: [2021] NZHC 2152
Decision Date: 13 December 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of the Queen versus S was heard on 13 December 2021, with the defendant pleading not guilty on the grounds of insanity to the charge of murdering his mother. The defendant had previously been assessed as unfit to plead, but recent psychiatric evidence indicated that he was now fit to stand trial. The court had to determine whether to accept the plea of not guilty on the grounds of insanity, decide on the appropriate disposition for the defendant, and consider whether permanent name suppression should be granted.

The court had to establish whether the defendant was not guilty by reason of insanity. The Crown had to prove that the defendant committed the acts leading to the murder charge, and the defendant had to demonstrate that he had a disease of the mind that made him incapable of knowing his actions were wrong. The court accepted the psychiatric evidence that the defendant was suffering from schizophrenia and was unable to understand that his actions were morally wrong when he killed his mother.

Given the defendant's not guilty verdict by reason of insanity, the court had to decide on the appropriate disposition. The court determined that the defendant should be detained in a hospital as a special patient under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act due to the significant risk he posed to the public and his need for close monitoring and treatment.

The final issue was whether there should be permanent name suppression. The court considered the potential undue hardship to the defendant's family if their identities were published. The court found that while the defendant would not face extreme hardship, his family would suffer undue hardship if their identities were disclosed. The court granted final suppression orders to protect the defendant's family from further invasion of their privacy.

In summary, the court found the defendant not guilty by reason of insanity, ordered his detention in a hospital as a special patient, and granted final suppression orders to protect the defendant's family from undue hardship. The court emphasized the tragic nature of the case for the entire family involved.

Orders