R v The Queen - [2018] NZHC 978

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

ACCUSED/DEFENDANT PURSUANT TO S 200 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2008-090-009921 [2018] NZHC 978

THE QUEEN

v

R

Hearing: 21 March 2018

Appearances:

B Dickey for the Crown

D Niven and P Winter for the Defendant

Judgment:

8 May 2018

JUDGMENT OF WOOLFORD J

[On determination of involvement in offence and fitness to stand trial under ss 9 and 14 of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003]

This judgment was delivered by me on Tuesday, 8 May 2018 at 11:00 am pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors: Meredith Connell (Office of the Crown Solicitor), Auckland Counsel: Mr D Niven, Auckland

R v R [2018] NZHC 978 [8 May 2018]

Introduction

[1] R is charged with murdering her sister on or about 9 October 2008. Prior to trial last September, the issue of R’s fitness to stand trial arose. The trial was adjourned. R is now before the Court for a determination of her involvement in the offence, pursuant to s 9 of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 (the Act), and, if she is involved in the offence, her fitness to stand trial under s 14 of the Act.

[2] The prosecution has a protracted history and R has been made the subject of many health assessors’ reports.

[3] Reports on the issue of R’s fitness to stand trial have been provided for this hearing by a psychiatrist, Dr Ian Goodwin, and a clinical psychologist, Ms Sabine Visser, both of whom were instructed by the defence and a second psychiatrist, Dr Peter Dean, instructed by the Crown.

Section 9

[4]Section 9 of the Act provides:

9 Court must be satisfied of defendant's involvement in offence
A court may not make a finding as to whether a defendant is unfit to stand trial unless the court is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the evidence against the defendant is sufficient to establish that the defendant caused the act or omission that forms the basis of the offence with which the defendant is charged.

[5] It has been agreed by the parties that the Court may proceed on the basis of the depositions evidence on which R was committed for trial in the High Court on the charge of murder. Given this offending precedes the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, I am of the view that this satisfies the inquiry before trial on “any other evidence that is submitted by the prosecutor or the defendant”.1 I therefore find and formally record, pursuant to s 13(1) of the Act, that the evidence against R is sufficient to establish that she caused the act or omission that forms the basis of the offence of murder with which

1 Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2013, s 10(3)(c).

she is charged. Being satisfied of the matters…

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 The Queen

Details

AGLC: R v The Queen [2018] NZHC 978
Case: [2018] NZHC 978
Decision Date: 8 May 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

R is charged with murdering her sister on or about 9 October 2008. The High Court must determine whether R is mentally impaired under s 14 of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 and, if so, whether she is unfit to stand trial. The court received evidence from two psychiatrists and a clinical psychologist. The Crown psychiatrist and the defence psychiatrist agreed that R was mentally impaired, but differed on the issue of fitness to stand trial. The court found that R was mentally impaired and unfit to stand trial. The court noted R’s significant cognitive difficulties, her language and communication issues, her psychotic illness, and her borderline personality disorder. These factors, individually and in combination, led the court to conclude that R was unfit to stand trial. The court ordered R to be remanded to the Mason Clinic and requested a report on the most suitable method of dealing with her under ss 24 or 25 of the Act.

Orders