R v Taumata - [2023] NZHC 360

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA AHURIRI ROHE

CRI-2019-092-8912

[2023] NZHC 360

THE KING

v

RANAPERA TAUMATA

Hearing: 21 July 2022 and 3 February 2023

Counsel:

S Manning for Crown

R Mansfield KC for Defendant

Judgment:

1 March 2023

JUDGMENT OF ELLIS J

[1] Mr Taumata is charged with murdering his partner, Taylor-Jade Hira, on 15 August 2019. He also faces two lesser charges of assaulting Ms Hira with intent to injure her on that day. His trial has now been adjourned several times. Because the case has previously come close to trial, the Crown’s evidence is in a relatively advanced state of readiness and the likely issues at trial are clear.

[2] Through no fault of anyone’s, however, an issue about Mr Taumata’s fitness to stand trial has only quite recently been raised. The process under the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 (CPMIP Act) was begun.

[3] Reports from health assessors, and then a joint report, were ordered and received. On 22 July 2022 there was a fitness hearing in accordance with s 8A of the

R v TAUMATA [2023] NZHC 360 [1 March 2023]

CPMIP Act. The health assessors attended and were available for questioning. The (interim) outcome was recorded by me in a minute the next day. I said:

[2] As a result of that hearing it seems that-provided he continues to take his anti-psychotic medication-Mr Taumata’s fitness is likely to turn on whether he can receive appropriate communication assistance before and during his trial. As stated in the joint report of the three health assessors dated 27 May 2022:

Although Mr Taumata’s cognitive deficits will not, in our opinion, prevent him from entering a plea, understanding the nature and purpose of proceedings and communicating with counsel for conducting a defence, his ability to take meaningfully part in trial proceedings will be dependent on the Court’s willingness to tolerate an extraordinary accommodation of Mr Taumata’s needs in this regard.

[3] For that reason it is agreed that it would be helpful for the Court to receive a report from a Communication Assistant detailing what help Mr Taumata requires and whether that help can be provided in a jury trial setting, before determining the question of fitness. I therefore adjourned the fitness hearing so that could occur.

[4] An interim communication assistance report was received in late November 2022 and the hearing resumed on 3 February 2023. One of the report’s authors attended the hearing and answered questions.

[5] As a result of that hearing, I have formed the view that, provided appropriate communication assistance is carefully planned and provided, Mr Taumata is fit to stand trial. I give my reasons below.

Relevant law

[6] Section 4 of the CPMIP Act provides that a defendant who is “unfit to stand trial”:
(a)means a defendant who is unable, due to mental impairment, to conduct a defence or to instruct counsel to do so; and

(b)includes a defendant who,…

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 Taumata

Details

AGLC: R v Taumata [2023] NZHC 360
Case: [2023] NZHC 360
Decision Date: 1 March 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Taumata involved a defendant, Ranapera Taumata, charged with the murder of his partner, Taylor-Jade Hira, and two counts of assault with intent to injure. The central issue was whether Taumata was fit to stand trial, given his apparent cognitive deficits. The case required the court to consider whether Taumata's mental impairments, if any, would prevent him from effectively participating in his trial. The court considered various expert reports, including those from health assessors and a communication assistance report, to determine if Taumata's cognitive deficits would impede his ability to understand the proceedings, communicate with counsel, and participate in his defence.

The court's reasoning hinged on the application of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003, particularly the definition of "unfit to stand trial" and the principles outlined in R v Hanara. The court held that Taumata's cognitive deficits, while significant, did not render him unfit to stand trial if appropriate communication assistance was provided. The key factors included Taumata's ability to understand and communicate with his counsel, process and respond to the evidence, and make a rational decision about whether to give evidence. The court concluded that with the implementation of a comprehensive communication assistance plan, Taumata could effectively participate in his trial. The court thus ruled that Taumata was fit to stand trial, provided that the necessary communication assistance was carefully planned and executed.

Orders