R v Silverwood - [2016] NZHC 1496

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI-2015-085-12415 [2016] NZHC 1496

THE QUEEN

v

CARL JAMES SILVERWOOD

Hearing: 1 July 2016

Counsel:

G J Burston for Crown
N J Sainsbury for Defendant

Judgment:

1 July 2016

JUDGMENT OF WILLIAMS J

[1] Carl Silverwood is charged with the murder of his mother, Helen Silverwood and the attempted murder of his father, Lee Silverwood. The defence has advised that he intends to raise the defence of insanity and the Crown, relying on several experts’ psychiatric reports, agrees that the only reasonable verdict is not guilty by reason of insanity. Section 20 of the Criminal Procedure (Mental Impaired Persons) Act 2003 (CPMIP Act) is therefore activated.

[2] At a hearing today I found that the defendant had caused the acts forming the basis of the offences with which he is charged. I found further that the defendant was insane within the meaning of s 23 of the Crimes Act 1961 at the time of the commission of the offence and that the appropriate verdict is therefore not guilty by
reason of insanity. I found further that the defendant should be detained in a hospital

R v SILVERWOOD [2016] NZHC 1496 [1 July 2016]

as a special patient under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and

Treatment) Act 1992.

[3] Finally, I declined to make a general order for suppression of the identity of the defendant, and/or his victims, but I directed that there should be no image published of the defendant.

[4] I now give my reasons.

Facts

[5] At the time of the incident the defendant (who is now 28 years old) was living with his parents. He was at the address with them on 6 December 2015. He and his mother, Helen, were in the lounge and his father, Lee, was in the garage. The defendant and Helen had an argument about the defendant not taking his medication and about the money he had been spending. He left the lounge and got a large knife from the kitchen. He came back into the lounge where Helen saw him carrying the knife. She retreated to the farthest corner and called out to Lee for help. The defendant pursued her and Helen tried to protect herself with her hands. The defendant grabbed her hand to prevent her escape. He stabbed her once in the side of her torso, then four times in the chest and upper abdomen. Helen then fell to the ground and the defendant stabbed her three times in the arms and upper back, and two more times, once in the abdomen and another to the right arm.

[6] The defendant then left Helen, went to the bathroom and washed his hands. He left the knife in the laundry and went to the garage where Lee was. The defendant picked up a hammer and swung it at Lee’s head, but Lee raised his arm to protect himself. The hammer struck Lee on his left forearm, bounced off and hit his…

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 Silverwood

Details

AGLC: R v Silverwood [2016] NZHC 1496
Case: [2016] NZHC 1496
Decision Date: 1 July 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Silverwood involves the defendant, Carl James Silverwood, who was charged with the murder of his mother, Helen Silverwood, and the attempted murder of his father, Lee Silverwood. The defence raised the defence of insanity, which was supported by several psychiatric reports. As a result, section 20 of the Criminal Procedure (Mental Impaired Persons) Act 2003 was activated, and the court was required to determine whether the defendant was insane at the time of the commission of the offences. The court also needed to decide the appropriate disposition under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992 and whether there should be any suppression of the defendant's identity.

The court found that the defendant had indeed caused the acts forming the basis of the charges against him. The court accepted the evidence of two expert psychiatrists, Dr Tracey Heads and Dr Justin Barry-Walsh, who concluded that the defendant was suffering from schizophrenia and was in a delusional state at the time of the offence. They were of the opinion that the defendant was unable to appreciate the moral quality of his actions or understand that they were morally wrong. The court accepted their findings and determined that the defendant was insane within the meaning of section 23 of the Crimes Act 1961 at the time of the commission of the offence. Consequently, the court found the defendant not guilty by reason of insanity.

In terms of the appropriate disposition, the court accepted the recommendation of Dr Heads that the defendant should be detained in a hospital as a special patient under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992. The court also declined to make a general order for suppression of the defendant's identity but directed that no image of the defendant should be published.

In conclusion, the court found that Carl James Silverwood was not guilty by reason of insanity for the murder of his mother and the attempted murder of his father. The court ordered that he be detained in a hospital as a special patient under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992 and directed that no image of the defendant should be published.

Orders