R v W - [2025] NZHC 3503

INTERIM ORDER UNTIL FURTHER ORDER OF THIS COURT PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF DEFENDANT PURSUANT TO S 200 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE PARAGRAPH [65]. SEE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CRI-2024-091-002373

[2025] NZHC 3503

THE KING

v

W

Hearing: 13 November 2025

Appearances:

G J Burston and B Wilkins for the Crown G M Fairbrother for Defendant

Judgment:

13 November 2025

JUDGMENT OF GRICE J

(Insanity and disposition hearing) (Anonymous version)

R v W [2025] NZHC 3503 [13 November 2025]

Introduction

[1] Mr W1 has been charged with attempted murder.2 He has entered a plea of not guilty by virtue of insanity.

[2] This Judge-alone hearing is being held under the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 (the CP(MIP) Act). Counsel have agreed on this process. Section 20 of the CP(MIP) Act sets out a process for a judge to make a finding of act proven, but not criminally responsible on account of insanity. If Mr W was insane within the meaning of s 23 of the Crimes Act 1961 at the time of the commission of the attempted murder, then I must find him not guilty on account of insanity.

[3] The purpose of this hearing is for me to decide whether that is my finding. If it is, then I must consider the question of appropriate disposition, given the current state of Mr W’s mental health.

Factual background

[4] The summary of facts which follows is largely based on the police summary of facts.

[5] The victim was a cyclist hit by Mr W in his car. The victim and the defendant were not known to each other.

[6] Mr W travelled from his home address to the area of the collision some distance away, sometime between Friday 27 December 2024 and Saturday 28 December 2024. At about 1.40 am on 28 December 2024, Mr W was sitting in his stationary car on Marine Parade in Paraparaumu. The victim and a friend rode past him on bicycles. Mr W started his car, did a U-turn and accelerated on the wrong side of the road to deliberately ram the victim with the bumper of his car. The

1 An interim non-publication order of the defendant’s name and identifying particulars is in place pending the hearing of an application for a permanent suppression order and further order of this Court. The defendant’s name is anonymised in the published version of this judgment. Other identifying particulars have also been redacted using square brackets.
2 Crimes Act 1961, s 173 — maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment. Charges of failing to stop or ascertain injury were withdrawn before the hearing.

victim hit the windscreen of Mr W’s car. Mr W made no attempt to stop and assist the victim. Instead, he stopped about 500 metres away and called 111 to inform police that he had hit a cyclist. When the police…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v W and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NZHC 3503
Decision Date: 13 November 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v W involved Mr W, who was charged with attempted murder and claimed to have acted under a plea of not guilty by virtue of insanity. The High Court of New Zealand, Wellington Registry, presided over by Justice Grice, conducted a Judge-alone hearing under the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 to determine if Mr W was not criminally responsible due to insanity. The court had to decide whether Mr W was insane at the time of the offence, as defined by Section 23 of the Crimes Act 1961, and if so, what the appropriate disposition should be under the CP(MIP) Act. Medical reports from psychiatrists and a psychologist indicated that Mr W had a severe mental disorder, likely schizoaffective disorder, which rendered him incapable of understanding the nature and quality of his acts or knowing they were morally wrong. The court found that Mr W was indeed insane at the time of the offence and, therefore, not criminally responsible. Consequently, the court acquitted Mr W of the attempted murder charge on the ground of insanity. Given the nature of the offence and Mr W's mental health condition, the court decided that he should be treated as a patient under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992 and detained as an inpatient for treatment. The court's decision was based on the need to ensure Mr W's mental health is managed effectively to prevent further violence. The interim non-publication order of the defendant's name and identifying particulars was continued until the determination of the application for a final suppression order.

Orders