R v T - [2020] NZHC 1323

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME(S), ADDRESS(ES), OCCUPATION(S) OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF

APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENT(S)/ACCUSED/DEFENDANT(S) PURSUANT TO S 200 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA NGĀMOTU ROHE

CRI-2019-043-001421

[2020] NZHC 1323

THE QUEEN

v

T

Hearing: 12 June 2020

Counsel:

C E Clarke for the Crown

P Keegan and S Hunt for Ms T

Judgment:

12 June 2020

JUDGMENT OF DOOGUE J

Introduction

[1]Ms T faces one charge of murder.1

[2] It has been evident from the outset that there would likely be an issue about whether or not Ms T was fit to plead to the charge and stand trial.

1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 160(2)(a), 167(a), 167(b) and 172; maximum penalty life imprisonment.

R v T [2020] NZHC 1323 [12 June 2020]

[3] The process for determining that issue is regulated by the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 (the Act), and it first involves an inquiry under s 8A. In the event that Ms T is found unfit to stand trial, the Court must then proceed to conduct a s 10 inquiry, determining whether or not the Court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Ms T caused the act that forms the basis of the charge of murder.

[4] This judgement records my determination of the issues under that process, with reasons.

Section 8A inquiry: is Ms T unfit to stand trial?

[5] Section 7 of the Act provides that a court may make a finding that a defendant is unfit to stand trial at any stage after the commencement of the proceedings and until all the evidence is concluded. A determination of unfitness is governed by s 8A , which relevantly provides:
8A Determining if defendant unfit to stand trial
(1)The court must receive the evidence of 2 health assessors as to whether the defendant is mentally impaired.
(2)If the court is satisfied on the evidence given under subsection (1) that the defendant is mentally impaired, the court must record a finding to that effect and—
(a)give each party an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence as to whether the defendant is unfit to stand trial; and
(b)find whether or not the defendant is unfit to stand trial; and
(c)record the finding made under paragraph (b).

(3)The standard of proof required for a finding under subsection (2) is the balance of probabilities.
(4)If the court records a finding under subsection (2) that the defendant is fit to stand trial, the court must continue the proceedings.
(5)If the court records a finding under subsection (2) that the defendant is unfit to stand trial, the court must inquire into the defendant’s involvement in the offence under section 10, 11, or 12, as the case requires.

[6] In Ms T’s case, the Court has received reports from two consultant psychiatrists, Dr Shailesh Kumar and Dr Oliver Hansby.

[7] Dr Kumar most recently saw Ms T once in April 2020, and Dr Hansby…

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 [2020] NZHC 1323
Case: [2020] NZHC 1323
Decision Date: 12 June 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involves Ms T, who is charged with the murder of her mother. The court was tasked with determining whether Ms T is fit to stand trial and, if she is unfit, whether the evidence is sufficient to establish that she caused the act that forms the basis of the charge of murder. The court's decision was based on the evidence presented by two consultant psychiatrists, Dr Shailesh Kumar and Dr Oliver Hansby, who both concluded that Ms T suffers from a mental impairment due to psychosis, in the context of underlying treatment-resistant schizophrenia. This mental impairment renders her unable to competently plead to the charge and renders Ms T incapable of adequately instructing counsel for the purposes of conducting a defence at trial.

The court found that, on the balance of the probabilities, Ms T is unfit to stand trial. The court also found that the evidence is sufficient to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that Ms T caused the act that forms the basis of the charge of murder. The court considered evidence from formal statements, oral evidence, and other evidence submitted by the prosecutor and defendant. The court concluded that Ms T is the daughter of the victim, and that she had often been abusive to her mother over the years as a result of her persecutory delusions involving her mother. The court found that Ms T was responsible for the victim’s death by manual neck compression.
The court adjourned the matter for the hearing to determine whether it is necessary for Ms T to be detained in accordance with one of the orders specified in s 24(2) of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003. The court also made an interim order suppressing Ms T’s name and that of her family under s 200(2)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, as publication would be likely to cause extreme hardship to Ms T and her family. Such order is to be reviewed at the disposition hearing.

Orders