R v Schuster - [2015] NZHC 2725

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2014-090-5632 [2015] NZHC 2725

THE QUEEN

v

CORRIE RON SCHUSTER

Hearing: 22 October 2015

Appearances:

K Lummis for the Crown

A Maxwell-Scott and L Mulder on instructions from R Mansfield for the Defendant

Judgment:

4 November 2015

JUDGMENT OF THOMAS J

This judgment was delivered by me on 4 November 2015 at 3.30 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date:………………………….

Solicitors:
Meredith Connell, Auckland.

Counsel:
A Maxwell-Scott, Auckland.

R v SCHUSTER [2015] NZHC 2725 [4 November 2015]

Introduction

[1] Mr Schuster has pleaded guilty to charges of aggravated burglary, careless discharge of a firearm and unlawful possession of ammunition.

[2] It is not in dispute that Mr Schuster was delusional at the time of the offending. This judgment deals with two issues: (1) whether Mr Schuster’s heavy use of methamphetamine was the major cause of psychosis or whether his use of methamphetamine had triggered an underlying mental illness; and (2) whether a disposition order should be made on sentencing under s 34(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 (the CPMIP Act).

The offending

[3] On 12 October 2014, at about midday, Mr Schuster was at 8 Easton Park Parade in Glenfield on the North Shore. His brother was residing at this address though he was not present on the day of the offending.

[4] Mr Schuster was in possession of a single barrel pump action shot gun. While in the lounge, he fired a single round into the television. The round went through the television and into the wall. He then entered the first victim’s bedroom. The first victim asked him what he was doing. Without saying a word, he raised the firearm, pointed it at the victim and fired one round at the wall behind her bed. The impact of the shot forced her back onto the bed. Her ears were ringing. She did not know where the shot had gone.

[5] Mr Schuster then pointed the firearm at the first victim’s head and told her to search something on Google. He also pointed the firearm at the second victim and demanded he give Mr Schuster his shoes. He demanded that the first victim drive him where he wanted to go. She refused and Mr Schuster said he would “blow her fucking head off” and then demanded the keys to her vehicle. The first victim threw her keys at Mr Schuster’s feet. Both victims managed to escape from the address.

[6] Mr Schuster left the address in the first victim’s vehicle. He drove to Waitakere Hospital and parked in the ambulance bay near the entrance to the emergency department. He walked up to a marked police patrol vehicle which was unoccupied. Using the shotgun, he fired three shots into the vehicle from different angles. The shots shattered the front passenger window, sprayed the vehicle interior and exterior with dents and holes and caused a large hole in the boot.

[7] At…

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 Schuster

Details

AGLC: R v Schuster [2015] NZHC 2725
Case: [2015] NZHC 2725
Decision Date: 4 November 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Thomas J delivered judgment in the case of the Queen v Corrie Ron Schuster. Schuster had pleaded guilty to charges of aggravated burglary, careless discharge of a firearm, and unlawful possession of ammunition. The court was tasked with determining whether Schuster's heavy use of methamphetamine was the major cause of his psychosis or whether it had triggered an underlying mental illness, and whether a disposition order should be made under s 34(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003. The court considered expert evidence from three psychiatrists and assessed the risks associated with Schuster's potential reoffending. Ultimately, the court concluded that Schuster's methamphetamine use was the major cause of his psychosis, and that a disposition order should not be made, as Schuster did not require compulsory treatment for his safety or that of others.

Orders