R v T - [2018] NZHC 2467

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI 2017-092-2315

[2018] NZHC 2467

THE QUEEN

v

T

Hearing: 5 June 2018

Counsel:

G R Kayes & A F Devathasan for Crown

D S Wallwork, I Jayanandan and E Ward for Mr Te Nahu

Minute:

7 June 2018

Reasons:

8 June 2018

JUDGMENT OF DUFFY J

Solicitors/Counsel:
Kayes Fletcher Walker, Manukau DS Wallwork, Auckland
I Jayanandan, Auckland

R v T [2018] NZHC 2467 [7 June 2018]

Summary

[1] On 5 June 2018, I ruled that expert opinion evidence in the form of a psychiatric report by Dr Ian Goodwin was inadmissible. I further ruled that the inadmissibility of the report could not be redeemed by making appropriate changes. My reasons for doing so now follow.

Background

[2] The defendant in this case, [T], is being charged with murder relating to the death of his father on 27 February 2017. In order to defend the charge, [T] relies on self-defence. In the course of this, he sought to have admitted as evidence a psychiatric report compiled by Dr Ian Goodwin on 31 May 2018.

[3] The admissibility of expert opinion evidence is governed by s 25 of the Evidence Act 2006 (EVA). That section provides, relevantly:

25 Admissibility of expert opinion evidence

(1) An opinion by an expert that is part of expert evidence offered in a proceeding is admissible if the fact-finder is likely to obtain substantial help from the opinion in understanding other evidence in the proceeding or in ascertaining any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the proceeding.

…

(3) If an opinion by an expert is based on a fact that is outside the general body of knowledge that makes up the expertise of the expert, the opinion may be relied on by the fact-finder only if that fact is or will be proved or judicially noticed in the proceeding.

[4] In addition, expert opinion evidence must be excluded if the Judge considers that its probative value is outweighed by the risk that it will have an unfairly prejudicial effect on or needlessly prolong the proceeding.1 In assessing the former risk, the Judge must take into account the defendant’s right to offer an effective defence.2

1 Section 8(1).
2 Section 8(2).

The current report

[5] I will begin with a précis of Dr Goodwin’s latest report. Broadly, the report concerns a diagnosis of [T] with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

[6] Dr Goodwin makes some introductory remarks wherein he recommends that current report be read in conjunction with two previous reports prepared about [T], dated 21 April 2017 and 25 July 2017. The defence was not seeking to have these earlier reports admitted as evidence. However, as I will come to, they are relevant to the decision that I have made.

[7] Dr Goodwin then states that he has interviewed [T] on two occasions: 5 April 2017 (for two hours) and 24 July 2017 (for one…

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 T

Details

AGLC: R v T [2018] NZHC 2467
Case: [2018] NZHC 2467
Decision Date: 7 June 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v T involved a defendant, [T], charged with the murder of his father on 27 February 2017, for which he intended to rely on the defence of self-defence. The defendant sought to have admitted as evidence a psychiatric report by Dr Ian Goodwin, dated 31 May 2018, concerning a diagnosis of [T] with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The admissibility of expert opinion evidence is governed by s 25 of the Evidence Act 2006 (EVA), which provides that an opinion by an expert is admissible if it is likely to obtain substantial help in understanding other evidence or ascertaining any fact of consequence to the determination of the proceeding. Additionally, expert opinion evidence must be excluded if the Judge considers that its probative value is outweighed by the risk that it will have an unfairly prejudicial effect on or needlessly prolong the proceeding. The legal issue in this case was whether Dr Goodwin’s psychiatric report, which was largely based on hearsay statements made by [T], was admissible as evidence.

The court found that, in principle, expert evidence of a defendant’s psychological condition may be relevant to the defence of self-defence, as it may help to illuminate the defendant’s honestly-held perception of the circumstances as he or she believes them to be. However, the court held that Dr Goodwin’s report was inadmissible as it contained, or was largely based upon, hearsay statements by [T], in violation of s 25(3) and s 21 of the EVA. The court also found that the report could not be saved by making appropriate changes, as the delay in providing the report and the impact this delay had on the Crown’s ability to explore in evidence with its witnesses whether there is a factual foundation for [T] having the signs of PTSD weighed against the admission of Dr Goodwin’s expert opinion.

As a result, the defence’s application to admit expert opinion evidence in the form of Dr Goodwin’s psychiatric report was dismissed. The court held that the inadmissibility of the report could not be redeemed by making appropriate changes. The final order was that the defence’s application to admit expert opinion evidence in the form of Dr Goodwin’s psychiatric report was dismissed.

Orders