R v Tui - [2020] NZHC 2074

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA NGĀMOTU ROHE

CRI 2019-043-1421

[2020] NZHC 2074

THE QUEEN

v

KAREN ANNE TUI

Hearing: 17 August 2020

Counsel:

C E Clarke for Crown

P M Keegan and S Hunt for Defendant

Judgment:

17 August 2020

JUDGMENT OF DOOGUE J

(Disposition under s 24(2) of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003)

Introduction

[1] Ms Tui is charged with murdering her mother on 13 August 2019.1 A post-mortem examination established that Ms Tui’s mother died as a result of manual neck compression.

[2] The issue of Ms Tui’s fitness to stand trial was raised, and the appropriate procedure under the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 (the Act) commenced.

1 Crimes Act 1961, ss 160(2)(a), 167(a), 167(b) and 172; maximum penalty life imprisonment.

R v TUI [2020] NZHC 2074 [17 August 2020]

[3] On 12 June 2020 I recorded a finding that, on the balance of probabilities, Ms Tui had caused the act that formed the basis of the offence of murder with which she is charged.2

[4] I adjourned the matter for this hearing, to determine whether it was necessary for Ms Tui to be detained in accordance with one of the orders specified in s 24(2) of the Act.

[5] Reports have been received from Drs Kumar and Hansby, who both recommend that Ms Tui be detained in a hospital as a special patient under s 24(2)(a) of the Act.

The law

[6] The threshold for making an order under s 24 of the Act is that detention must be “necessary” in the interests of the public or those who may be affected by the Court’s decision. The Court must consider all the circumstances of the case and, having considered the evidence of one or more health assessors, decide whether the public interest requires the defendant to be detained as a special patient or a special care recipient. The health assessor’s evidence will obviously be important in this context. It must effectively explain why the treatment and management of the defendant requires him or her to be detained in a secure facility or hospital.

[7] The Court is therefore likely to undertake its assessment by means of a two-stage process. First, the Court must determine whether it is necessary in the interests of the public to make an order under s 24(2). If it concludes that it is not necessary to make such an order, it must go on to make an alternative form of order under s 25.

[8] The standard of necessity obviously sets a high threshold. That is not surprising given the serious consequences of an order under s 24(2). In Environmental Defence Society Inc v Mangonui County Council the Court of Appeal described the word “necessary”, when used in s 3 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1977, as

2 R v T [2020] NZHC 1323.

“a fairly strong word falling between expedient or desirable…

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 Tui

Details

AGLC: R v Tui [2020] NZHC 2074
Case: [2020] NZHC 2074
Decision Date: 17 August 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of the Crown v Tui involved a charge of murder against Ms Tui, who allegedly murdered her mother on 13 August 2019. The post-mortem examination revealed that the cause of death was manual neck compression. The issue of Ms Tui's fitness to stand trial was raised, and the court was required to determine whether Ms Tui should be detained as a special patient under the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003.

The court considered the threshold for making an order under s 24 of the Act, which requires detention to be "necessary" in the interests of the public or those who may be affected by the court's decision. The court examined the reports of Drs Kumar and Hansby, who both recommended that Ms Tui be detained in a hospital as a special patient. The court also considered the submissions made by the Crown and Ms Tui's legal counsel.

The court concluded that it was necessary in the interests of the public for Ms Tui to be detained as a special patient because she continued to pose a serious danger to others due to her ongoing delusional beliefs. The court acknowledged the tragic nature of the case and expressed sympathy for Ms Tui's whānau. The court also noted the importance of ensuring proper accountability for the violent death of an innocent woman.

The court ordered that Ms Tui be detained in a hospital as a special patient under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992. The court also discharged any existing name suppression orders.

Orders