Legal Research
Cases
R v Tofilau

R v Tofilau

Case [2019] NZHC 2437 26 September 2019

Unfitness to Stand Trial

Mental Health

Special Patient Order

Public Safety

Risk Management

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2018-004-11745

[2019] NZHC 2437

THE QUEEN

v

SOLOMONA TOFILAU

Hearing: 26 September 2019

Counsel:

E J Walker for Crown

N P Chisnall (on instructions from A S Bloem) for Defendant

Judgment:

26 September 2019

JUDGMENT OF BREWER J

Solicitors:
Meredith Connell (Auckland) for Crown
Bloem & Associates (Albany) for Defendant

R v TOFILAU [2019] NZHC 2437 [26 September 2019]

Introduction

[1] In my judgment of 29 August 2019,1 I found Mr Tofilau unfit to stand trial but that he caused the act that forms the basis of the charge of attempted murder which has been brought against him. I ordered that inquiries be made to determine the most suitable method of dealing with Mr Tofilau under s 24 or s 25 of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 (“the Act”). This judgment decides that issue.

The law

[2]I set out ss 24 and 25:

24 Detention of defendant found unfit to stand trial or insane as special patient or special care recipient

(1)When the court has sufficient information on the condition of a defendant found unfit to stand trial or acquitted on account of his or her insanity, the court must—

(a)consider all the circumstances of the case; and

(b)consider the evidence of 1 or more health assessors as to whether the detention of the defendant in accordance with one of the orders specified in subsection (2) is necessary; and

(c)make one of the orders referred to in paragraph (b) if it is satisfied that the making of the order is necessary in the interests of the public or any person or class of person who may be affected by the court's decision.

(2)The orders referred to in subsection (1) are that the defendant be detained—

(a)in a hospital as a special patient under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992; or

(b)in a secure facility as a special care recipient under the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003.

(3)Before the court makes an order specified in subsection (2)(a), the court must have received evidence, under subsection (1)(b), about the defendant from at least 1 health assessor who is a psychiatrist

1 R v Tofilau [2019] NZHC 2145.

25 Alternative decisions in respect of defendant unfit to stand trial or insane

(1)If, after considering the matters specified in section 24(1)(a) and (b) concerning a defendant found unfit to stand trial or acquitted on account of his or her insanity, the court is not satisfied that an order under section 24(2) is necessary, the court must deal with the defendant—

(a)by ordering that the defendant be treated as a patient under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992; or

(b)by ordering that the defendant be cared for as a care recipient under the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003; or

(c)if the person is liable to be detained under a sentence of…

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 Tofilau

Details

AGLC: R v Tofilau [2019] NZHC 2437
Case: [2019] NZHC 2437
Decision Date: 26 September 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Tofilau was heard in the High Court of New Zealand in Auckland. Solomona Tofilau was found unfit to stand trial for the attempted murder of another person, but it was determined that he was responsible for the act. The court was tasked with determining the most suitable method of dealing with Tofilau under sections 24 or 25 of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003. The legal issues involved interpreting these sections to decide whether Tofilau should be detained as a special patient or treated under other provisions of the Act. Dr Jeremy Skipworth, a consultant forensic psychiatrist, provided a comprehensive report detailing Tofilau's clinical progress and diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment, leading to a recommendation for detention as a special patient. The court considered the evidence and recommendations, agreeing that this was the best option to manage Tofilau's risk to the public while exploring future community placement options. The court ordered that Tofilau be detained as a special patient under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992, with a maximum detention period of seven years.

Orders