R v Tamati-Moka - [2017] NZHC 2235

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA
KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2017-019-1522 [2017] NZHC 2235

THE QUEEN

v

GENIE-LEE TAMATI-MOKA

Hearing: 15 September 2017 (via AVL)

Counsel:

R G Douch for Crown
K Burroughs for Defendant

Judgment:

15 September 2017

JUDGMENT OF BREWER J (DISPOSITION HEARING)

Solicitors:
Almao Douch (Hamilton) for Crown
Kerry Burroughs (Hamilton) for Defendant

R v TAMATI-MOKA [2017] NZHC 2235 [15 September 2017]

[1] In my judgment of 24 August 2017,1 I found Ms Tamati-Moka not guilty on account of insanity on one charge of attempted murder.

[2] I set out the factual situation in my judgment:

[15] In this case, the factual situation can be described briefly. On
10 January 2017, Ms Tamati-Moka was socialising at a Hamilton address with a friend and with the victim’s grandfather. The victim was a child then aged 18 months. She was in bed.

[16] At some stage, without any apparent motive, Ms Tamati-Moka went into the kitchen, armed herself with a knife and went down to the bedroom where the victim was asleep. She stabbed the victim four times to her back causing very serious injury. There were two further lacerations to the back.

[17] Ms Tamati-Moka then ran from the house and purposely ran in front of a car which was driving on a road. To the first police officer who attended what was reported as a car accident, Ms Tamati-Moka said that she wanted to die. She rambled and talked about hurting a baby. From that date, Ms Tamati-Moka has been receiving mental health treatment at the Henry Bennett Centre.

[3] As a result of my finding, I was required by s 23 of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 (“the Act”) to order that inquiries be made to determine the most suitable method of dealing with Ms Tamati-Moka under either s 24 or s 25 of the Act.

[4] As I explained in my judgment, the principal difference between an order under s 24 and an order under s 25 is that the former would require that Ms Tamati- Moka be detained.

[5] As at the date of my judgment, the Crown had provided a report from Dr Majeed (dated 21 August 2017) who recommended that Ms Tamati-Moka be considered for disposition under s 25(1)(a) of the Act. In the report, Dr Majeed says:

Her psychiatric treatment needs and risk management needs can in my opinion be sufficiently delivered under the provisions of section 25(1)(a). Disposition under section 24(2)(a) would be unnecessary in relation to her psychiatric treatment and risk management needs and would slow down her reintegration back into the community. Section 25(1)(a) provides sufficient legal grounds to cover the treatment of her psychiatric condition and to cover the management of any risk that arises from her mental condition.

[6] In my judgment, I went on to say:

[39] In cases such as this, the Court will always be mindful of public safety. I respect Dr Majeed’s…

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 Tamati-Moka 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: [2017] NZHC 2235
Decision Date: 15 September 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Tamati-Moka, the defendant was found not guilty of attempted murder by reason of insanity. The Crown sought a disposition hearing under the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 to determine the most suitable method of dealing with the defendant under either section 24 or section 25 of the Act. The key legal issue for the court was whether the defendant should be detained as a special patient under section 24 of the Act or treated as a patient under section 25 of the Act. The court considered reports from several mental health professionals, who provided differing opinions on the most suitable method of dealing with the defendant. The court ultimately decided to order the defendant be detained as a special patient under section 24 of the Act. The court found that while the defendant had made significant progress in her treatment, her improvements were relatively recent and the public interest required that she not be put into a self-regulating situation until she was truly ready for it.

The court considered the defendant's mental health condition, which was diagnosed as major depressive disorder, namely schizophrenia. The defendant had become suddenly and potentially lethally violent as a result of her illness. While her treatment had resulted in excellent progress, this progress was relatively recent. The court noted that the defendant's normal living environment and personal circumstances had not been conducive to calm self-regulation. The court found that special patient status would provide an additional level of protection for the defendant and the public. The court ordered that the defendant be detained in a hospital as a special patient under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992.

Orders