R v The Queen - [2015] NZHC 815

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF THE JUDGMENT AND ANY PART OF THE PROCEEDINGS (INCLUDING THE RESULT) IN NEWS MEDIA OR ON THE INTERNET OR OTHER PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DATABASE UNTIL FINAL DISPOSITION OF TRIAL. PUBLICATION IN LAW REPORT OR LAW DIGEST PERMITTED.

NOTE: PREVIOUS ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF THE DEFENDANT PURSUANT TO S 200 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011
REMAINS IN PLACE.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2014-044-2080 [2015] NZHC 815

THE QUEEN

v

R

Hearing: 22 April 2015

Appearances:

Mr Walker for Crown
Mr Brosnahan & Ms Brown for defendant

Judgment:

23 April 2015

JUDGMENT OF WINKELMANN J

[Section 14 Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 - fitness
to stand trial]

This judgment was delivered by me on 23 April 2015 at 4.30 pm pursuant to
Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.
Registrar/ Deputy Registrar

R v R [2015] NZHC 815 [23 April 2015]

[1] The defendant is to stand trial on one charge of murder and one charge of rape. An issue has been raised as to whether he is fit to stand trial. The Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 (the Act) provides that 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 that formed the basis of the
offence or offences with which he is charged.1 I have previously determined that the

evidence against the defendant is sufficient to establish that he did the acts which form the basis of the offences of murder and rape.2

[2] Having determined that issue I am therefore required to proceed to determine the matters specified in s 14 of the Act.3 The first of these matters is whether the defendant is mentally impaired. To determine that I must consider the evidence of two health assessors on the issue.

[3] Section 14(2) sets out the procedure if I make a determination that the defendant is mentally impaired. It provides:

(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).

The standard of proof required for a finding under subs (2) is the balance of probabilities.4

[4] The Court of Appeal summarised this procedure in R v McKay as follows5:

Step 1 … the first step is to obtain [two health assessors’ reports]. …

1      Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003, s 9.
2      R v R [2015] NZHC 783.
3      Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003, s 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 The Queen

Details

AGLC: R v The Queen [2015] NZHC 815
Case: [2015] NZHC 815
Decision Date: 23 April 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involves a defendant who is to stand trial on charges of murder and rape. The issue at hand is whether the defendant is fit to stand trial, as his mental state has been called into question. The relevant legislation is the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003. The court must first determine if the defendant is mentally impaired and, if so, whether this impairment affects his fitness to stand trial. Two health assessors provided their opinions on the defendant’s mental state and fitness to stand trial, which the court considered alongside other evidence.

The court found that the defendant does not have a mental impairment that would render him unfit to stand trial. The assessors, Dr Skipworth and Ms Sharma, concluded that the defendant’s symptoms, while present, were not severe enough to constitute a mental impairment under the Act. Both assessors found that the defendant has the cognitive capacity to participate in the trial process, understand the charges, and communicate with his counsel effectively. The court accepted these findings and observed the defendant’s active participation in pre-trial hearings, concluding that he is fit to stand trial.

The judgment also addressed the need for suppression orders to protect the defendant's right to a fair trial, including prohibiting publication of his name and details of the proceedings until the trial is concluded. The court emphasised that the defendant's post-traumatic stress disorder and personality traits, while impacting his ability to trust and cooperate, do not amount to a mental impairment that would prevent him from standing trial.

Orders