R v Tampin - [2013] NZHC 2571

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2012-004-011837 [2013] NZHC 2571

THE QUEEN

v

GEOFFREY TAMPIN

Hearing:	3 October 2013
Counsel:	J C L Dixon and C P Paterson for Crown L Freyer for Accused
Judgment:	3 October 2013

JUDGMENT OF COLLINS J

Introduction

[1] The questions I have to answer are:

(1)Is Mr Tampin not guilty of murdering Mr Clark on 26 June 2012 by reason of insanity; and if he is

(2) What is the most suitable method of dealing with Mr Tampin? [2] In answering these questions I shall:
(1)consider Mr Tampin’s involvement in the death of Mr Clark;

(2)decide whether Mr Tampin was insane at the time of the commission of the offence; and

R v TAMPIN [2013] NZHC 2571 [3 October 2013]

(3)consider if orders should be made under s 24(2) or s 25(1) of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 (the Act).

[3] The pre-conditions to a finding of insanity set out in s 20(2) of the Act are satisfied in this case. That is to say, Mr Tampin has indicated he intends to raise the defence of insanity and the Crown agrees that the only reasonable verdict is not guilty on account of insanity.

Mr Tampin’s involvement in Mr Clark’s death

[4] I have had the benefit of an affidavit from Detective Senior Sergeant McHattie, the Officer in Charge of the investigation into Mr Clark’s death. That operation was code named “Operation Cowley”.

[5] The police investigations establish that Mr Tampin and Mr Clark were long- term friends. In June 2012 Mr Tampin moved into the flat occupied by Mr Clark.

[6] Mr Tampin suffers from schizophrenia and was at the time under the care of Auckland Community Mental Health Services.

[7] On the evening of 26 June 2012 Mr Tampin was walking around Auckland city. At the time he heard voices in his head which told him he should kill his flatmate. Mr Tampin went back to Mr Clark’s flat and went to bed. However, the voices continued in his head, telling him that he should kill his flatmate.

[8] Mr Tampin got out of bed and located a butcher’s knife. He then went into the kitchen area where Mr Clark was bending over the kitchen sink. Mr Tampin stabbed Mr Clark in the torso. A violent struggle then developed during which a glass panel in the front door of the property was smashed. During the struggle Mr Tampin stabbed Mr Clark over 15 times in his chest, left arm, left hand and left leg.

[9] Mr Clark died from the wounds he received.

[10] After stabbing Mr Clark Mr Tampin went back to bed. The following morning he telephoned his mother and asked her to contact the police because he had stabbed and killed his flatmate.

[11] When spoken to by the police Mr Tampin admitted the facts I have just summarised.

[12] ESR forensic evidence is consistent with the account Mr Tampin provided the police.

[13]…

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 Tampin

Details

AGLC: R v Tampin [2013] NZHC 2571
Case: [2013] NZHC 2571
Decision Date: 3 October 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, Collins J delivered a judgment in the case of The Queen v Geoffrey Tampin. The defendant, Geoffrey Tampin, was charged with the murder of his flatmate, Mr. Clark. The court had to determine if Tampin was not guilty by reason of insanity and, if so, the most suitable method of dealing with him. Tampin had a history of schizophrenia and had been under the care of Auckland Community Mental Health Services at the time of the incident. On the evening of 26 June 2012, Tampin heard voices telling him to kill his flatmate. He stabbed Mr. Clark over 15 times, resulting in his death.

The court considered psychiatric evidence from Dr. Pavagada and Professor Melsop. Both psychiatrists concluded that Tampin was suffering from a disease of the mind at the time of the offence and was incapable of knowing that his actions were morally wrong. Based on the psychiatric evidence, Collins J concluded that Tampin was insane at the time of the commission of the offence. Therefore, Tampin was found not guilty by reason of insanity.

The court then turned to the question of how to deal with Tampin under the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003. The court considered the evidence and decided that a special patient order was necessary. Tampin's history of mental illness, his inability to manage it, and the extreme violence associated with his most recent relapse warranted a strictly controlled environment. Collins J ordered the detention of Tampin in a hospital as a special patient under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992.

Collins J also granted permission for Tampin's name to be published in connection with any reports of this proceeding. The judge believed there were three factors justifying the publication of Tampin's name: his name had already been widely published in relation to the death of Mr. Clark, there was an obvious public interest in allowing the public to become aware of the outcome of the prosecution of Tampin, and both Dr. Pavagada and Professor Melsop advised that publishing Tampin's name was unlikely to have an adverse effect upon his treatment.

Orders