R v W - [2016] NZHC 2923

THE NAME OF THE DEFENDANT AND ANY IDENTIFYING DETAILS ARE SUPPRESSED UNTIL 12.00 PM ON 16 DECEMBER 2016.

OTHER SUPPRESSION ORDERS, WHICH WILL NOT BE BREACHED BY REPRODUCTION OF THE CONTENT OF THIS JUDGMENT, ALSO EXIST.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI 2016-085-1400 [2016] NZHC 2923

THE QUEEN

v

W

Hearing: 1 December 2016

Counsel:

G J Burston and E M Light for Crown
C J Tennet and C Hirschfeld for Defendant

Judgment:

05 December 2016

ORAL JUDGMENT OF SIMON FRANCE J

(Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003, ss 9, 14 and 20)

[1] The defendant, D, is charged with the murder of Ms Heidi Pryor, a then

37 year old woman who was the defendant’s friend. Ms Pryor was visiting D at the time to share an evening meal. During the course of the evening it is alleged D stabbed Ms Pryor several times, resulting in her death quickly thereafter.

[2] D rang the police and admitted the stabbing. The police attended the scene and D was arrested. At that time, and for some period thereafter, she was very unwell mentally. Successive decisions of this Court have remanded D under the
provisions of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003

R v W [2016] NZHC 2923 [05 December 2016]

(the Act). The expert advice, which was accepted, was that D’s mental state was

such that the criminal process could not progress.

[3] The Court is now advised D’s mental health has stabilised such that she is

now able to enter a plea.

[4] Section 9 of the Act requires that a Court, before finding a defendant is unfit to stand trial, must be satisfied the defendant is responsible for the act underlying the charge. Counsel for the defendant does not contest the point. There is a certain circularity to that because it is a concession based on instructions, which themselves would only be valid if the defendant is fit to give them. Accordingly, I consider it proper for the Court to make its own assessment, and the Crown has provided the
materials to enable that.1

[5] The evidence is overwhelming, even leaving to one side statements made by the defendant immediately following the arrest. There is sensibly no possible basis on which to dispute that D killed Ms Pryor by stabbing her to death. In the circumstances I do not consider it necessary to detail the various sources.

[6] Section 9 requires that I be satisfied to the balance of probabilities. Recognising that it is likely I will soon be considering a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity, I confirm that I am satisfied to the criminal standard that D killed Ms Pryor.

Facts

[7] It will be convenient at this point to detail the objective facts. I exclude from this summary the evidence yet to be given about D’s state of mind at the time.

[8] The defendant and the deceased came to know each other as a result 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 W

Details

AGLC: R v W [2016] NZHC 2923
Case: [2016] NZHC 2923
Decision Date: 05 December 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of The Queen v W, the defendant, W, was charged with the murder of Ms Heidi Pryor. W's mental health was a significant issue, and she had previously been deemed unfit to stand trial. However, after some time, W's mental health stabilized, and she was deemed fit to stand trial and enter a plea. W pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity, and the court had to decide whether W was indeed not guilty by reason of insanity.

The court heard evidence from three psychiatrists who assessed W's mental state at the time of the incident. All three psychiatrists concluded that W was suffering from a severe mental disorder that rendered her incapable of understanding the nature and quality of her act or knowing that it was morally wrong. The court was satisfied that W was indeed not guilty by reason of insanity at the time of the incident.

The court also had to decide on the appropriate disposition for W. Both psychiatrists recommended that W be detained as a special patient under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992. The court agreed with the psychiatrists' recommendation, considering that W's mental health deteriorated rapidly, and she had no insight into her condition.

Finally, the court had to decide on the issue of permanent name suppression for W. W's legal team argued that lifting name suppression would cause extreme hardship to W and negatively impact her mental health and rehabilitation. However, the court decided against permanent name suppression, considering that there was a significant public interest in knowing W's identity, and the possible future impact on W's rehabilitation was not enough to displace the presumption of publicity.

Orders