R v Scipio (aka Whittaker)

[2013] NZHC 2940

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI 2011-009-011359 [2013] NZHC 2940

REGINA

v

STEPHEN MARK SCIPIO (AKA WHITTAKER)

Hearing:                   7 November 2013

Appearances:           B Stanaway for Crown

C Ruane for Accused
J Oetgen - Court Psychiatric Nurse

Judgment:                7 November 2013

ORAL JUDGMENT OF FOGARTY J

[1]      Stephen Scipio, you are also known as Stephen Mark Whittaker, you have been charged with the murder of  your former partner Bronwyn Mary Sadler at Christchurch on 27 September 2011.

[2]      You  attacked  her with  a large knife.    It  was  a frenzied attack,  and  you inflicted 26 stab wounds.  I am not going to go into the detail of that. You killed her. You telephoned the police.

[3]      The Court has heard from Mr Stanaway, in some detail, that there were clumsy signs of trying to fake what had happened, including placing a knife under Ms Sadler’s right hand.  But – and these are matters which have been considered by both the Crown prosecutor and by the clinicians as to whether or not they go against

a finding of insanity; not guilty on the grounds of insanity – however, there were also

R v SCIPIO (AKA WHITTAKER) [2013] NZHC 2940 [7 November 2013]

other signs noted by the police responding to the call.  You were found lying on a bed in a bedroom, in a non-responsive state, appearing to have some kind of seizure. There  are  other  signs,  in  the  DVD  interview,  showing  you  to  be  dishevelled, confused and constantly blinking.

[4]      You have a long history of psychiatric illness, a longstanding diagnosis of schizophrenia, sometimes expressed in slightly different technical language.

[5]      Two years has passed since this most unfortunate death of Bronwyn Sadler.

[6]      I have read very carefully the reports of two clinicians, both of whom are well-known to this Court, Dr Austin and Ms Kingi, which are very thorough, which record your history.  They are well aware of what happened, and both are of the view that this was a case where you did not know that what you did was morally wrong, in the sense of morally wrong that all people in the community, other than mentally ill people, have of what is right and wrong. You would have understood what you were doing, but it is a phenomenon of schizophrenia that you can have a sense of superiority, or command hallucinations, giving the person who is ill a sense of belief in the right of what they are doing, even though they are doing incredibly ghastly and violent things, leading, in this case, to death.

[7]      The law requires me not simply just to read the experts reports and then just go  on,  as  it  were,  without  making  a  judgment.     I  am  personally  satisfied, considerably  assisted,  of  course,  and  relying  upon  the  reports  from  the  two clinicians, but also relying on the judgment of the senior counsel before me, particularly the Crown prosecutor, in a matter as serious as this.

[8]      I am confident that the correct verdict in this case is not guilty on the grounds of insanity. That is the verdict.

[9]      Both clinicians and the Crown prosecutor are of the view that the appropriate disposition is to be made under s 24(2)(a) of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003, that you be detained in a hospital as a special patient.  I would add, because I have not actually cited it, that I am, in making the finding of

not guilty on the grounds of insanity, relying on s 23(2)(b) of the Criminal Procedure

(Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003, for the reasons that I have just delivered.

Solicitors:

C Ruane Barrister, Christchurch

Raymond Donnelly & Co, Christchurch