R v Scipio aka Whittaker - [2012] NZHC 1483

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2011-009-11359 [2012] NZHC 1483

REGINA

v

STEPHEN MARK SCIPIO AKA WHITTAKER

Hearing: 26 June 2012

Appearances: C Ruane for the Accused
R Bell for the Crown
J Oetgen - Psychiatric Nurse

Judgment: 26 June 2012

ORAL JUDGMENT OF HON JUSTICE FRENCH Final Disposition Under Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003

[1] Mr Whittaker has been charged with the murder of his former partner. He has a long history of mental health issues and has been diagnosed as suffering from schizo-affective disorder. As a result of that history, the procedures of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 were invoked.

[2] In previous judgments[1], I have found that Mr Whittaker did kill his partner by stabbing her, but that he suffers from a mental impairment and was not fit to stand trial. It appears from the medical evidence that it is likely that had he been fit to
stand trial, he would have had a defence of insanity.

R V SCIPIO AKA WHITTAKER HC CHCH CRI-2011-009-11359 [26 June 2012]

[1] R v W [2012] NZHC 436, 15 March 2012, and R v Whittaker [2012] NZHC 1158, 28 May 2012

[3] The issue before me today is that of disposition. Under s 23 Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003, once a person has been found unfit to stand trial, the Court must order that enquiries be made to determine the most suitable method of dealing with the person under s 24 or s 25.

[4] Section 24 requires the Court to make an order that the person be detained in a hospital as a special patient, or in a secure facility as a special care recipient, if the Court is satisfied that the making of such an order is necessary in the interests of the public or any person or class of person who may be affected by the Court’s decision.

[5] Section 25 provides for less restrictive outcomes in the event that the Court concludes that neither of those two types of order is necessary in the interests of the public.

[6] I have been provided with reports from two health assessors; one a psychiatrist, Dr Austin, the other a psychologist, Ms Kingi. Both report writers are familiar with the facts of this case and the state of Mr Whittaker’s health. Both express the view that detention as a special patient is the most appropriate outcome. This is so despite the fact that both have noticed an improvement in Mr Whittaker’s mental health in the last few weeks. In particular, it appears that for the first time he is aware of the fact that his partner is dead and aware of the role that he played in that.

[7] In his submissions, Mr Ruane has provided a very helpful summary of the two health reports. As Mr Ruane says, Ms Kingi’s report can be summarised as follows:

(a) Mr Whittaker has a chronic psychiatric illness characterised by…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Scipio aka Whittaker and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2012] NZHC 1483
Decision Date: 26 June 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Regina v Stephen Mark Scipio, also known as Whittaker, was heard in the High Court of New Zealand, Christchurch Registry, on 26 June 2012. The accused, Mr Whittaker, is charged with the murder of his former partner. Given his history of mental health issues, diagnosed as schizo-affective disorder, the procedures of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 were invoked. Previous judgments found that Mr Whittaker did kill his partner by stabbing her but was not fit to stand trial. The court must now determine the most suitable method of dealing with Mr Whittaker under this act.

The court had to decide whether Mr Whittaker should be detained as a special patient in a hospital or secure facility, or if a less restrictive outcome could be applied. The decision hinges on whether such detention is necessary in the interests of the public or any person or class of person who may be affected by the court's decision. Two health assessors, a psychiatrist and a psychologist, both recommended that Mr Whittaker be detained as a special patient. They noted his chronic psychiatric illness, partial response to treatment, and ongoing risk of harm to others and himself. The defence counsel accepted these reports and submitted that detention as a special patient would be in the interests of the public and Mr Whittaker himself.

The court agreed with the health assessors' recommendation and found that Mr Whittaker should be detained as a special patient. The decision was based on the seriousness of the offending, the long history of psychiatric problems, non-compliance with medication, and continuing difficulties in a controlled setting. The court also addressed the issue of suppression, which had been applied to previous judgments and Mr Whittaker's name. The court decided that continued suppression was not warranted, as there was no medical evidence to support the application, and lifting the suppression order would not set an unwanted precedent.

Orders