R v Yates

[2023] NZHC 1348

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2021-090-004315

[2023] NZHC 1348

THE KING

v

JAMES ROBERT YATES

Hearing:	30 May 2023
Appearances:	H Steele and E Kerr for the Crown N Wintour for Mr Yates
Judgment:	30 May 2023

ORAL JUDGMENT OF POWELL J

This judgment was delivered by me on 30 May 2023 pursuant to R 11.5 of the High Court Rules

…………………..

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:

Meredith Connell Civic Chambers

Counsel: H Steele E Kerr

N Wintour

R v JAMES ROBERT YATES [2023] NZHC 1348 [30 May 2023]

[1]    James Robert Yates has been charged with murder following the death of his uncle, David Yates, on 12 November 2021. Mr Yates is alleged to have stabbed his uncle some 56 times with a kitchen knife as well as stomping on David Yates neck so as to cause a fracture, with David Yates dying as a result of the injuries that he suffered.

[2]    There is no dispute on the evidence before me that Mr Yates killed his uncle. He confirmed the same to Police at the time of his arrest and subsequently to various medical assessors, and his involvement is supported by the other evidence that is available. Moreover, Mr Yates who it is accepted is fit to plead has confirmed through counsel, Mr Wintour, that he accepts the summary of facts prepared by the Crown. Instead, Mr Yates pleaded not guilty to murder by reason of insanity.

[3]    Mr Yates’ trial was scheduled to commence on 29 May 2023. Prior to the trial commencing psychiatric reports were obtained from Doctor Surendhraj Naidu, Doctor James Cavney and Doctor Ian Goodwin who have all concluded Mr Yates was insane at the time he killed his uncle.

[4]    As a result, Crown counsel  Mr Steele has formally  confirmed pursuant  to    s 20(2)(b) of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 that the Crown considers the only reasonable verdict is a finding of act proven but that      Mr Yates is not criminally responsible on account of insanity. Given that position then pursuant to s 20(2)(c) of the same Act, I am required to consider whether Mr Yates was insane within the meaning of s 23 of the Crimes Act 1961 at the time he killed David Yates.

[5]    I have now had the opportunity to review the reports of Dr Naidu, Dr Cavney, and Dr Goodwin. All three have accepted an earlier psychiatric diagnosis that at the time he killed David Yates, Mr Yates was suffering from schizophrenia. Each assessor referred to evidence from family members that Mr Yates’ condition had deteriorated in the period leading up to the death of David Yates. Each has concluded, albeit for slightly different reasons, that the schizophrenia manifested itself in voices heard by Mr Yates which ultimately told him to kill David Yates. Each assessor concluded therefore that while Mr Yates understood that he killed David Yates he did not know that his actions were morally wrong in terms of s 23(2)(b) of the Crimes Act 1961. It

is noted that notwithstanding the reports were comprehensive Crown counsel sought further clarification from each of the psychiatrists with respect to aspects of their conclusions and the other evidence available, including attempting to explore differences in the account given by Mr Yates to the different psychiatrists. In each case the psychiatrists ultimately confirmed their conclusions and put down any inconsistencies to Mr Yates’ noted intellectual disability and inability to articulate exactly what happened, coupled with the amount of time that has now taken place.

[6]    Given the position taken by the assessors which is consistent with the other psychiatric and psychological reports that are before the Court,1 and noting that there is otherwise no contrary evidence about Mr Yates’ mental state before me, I am satisfied on the basis of the evidence that Mr Yates was insane within the meaning of s 23 of the Crimes Act 1961 at the time he killed David Yates.

[7]    Section 20(1) of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 requires me to now explain to Mr Yates what I have just been speaking about and the decision that I have made.

[8]    As you have heard I am satisfied that it was you that killed David Yates. You pleaded not guilty to murder by reason of insanity and having entered that plea in the court, the Court directed that various assessments be obtained from different psychiatrists, and I have just been setting out in summary form what those various psychiatrists have said. Ultimately all three of those psychiatrists have accepted that you were insane in legal terms at the time that you killed David Yates. I have now indicated that I accept the conclusions that they have reached, and I have noted that there is no evidence before me that would mean that I could take any different view.  I have therefore indicated that as a result, you were insane at the time you killed David Yates.

[9]    Given that position I therefore record various findings pursuant to s 20(1) of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003. First, I record a finding that your, Mr Yates’, act of killing David Yates was proven but you are not

1      Including psychiatric treatment reports by Dr Yvette Kelly and Dr Angela Rogers and further reports by Dr Surendhraj Naidu and Dr Jeremy Whiting.

criminally responsible on account of insanity. I therefore acquit you, Mr Yates, on the charge of murder on account of your insanity.

[10]   I direct that inquiries are to be made to determine the most suitable method of dealing with Mr Yates under ss 24 and 25 of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 and as you have heard me say Mr Yates what that will mean is that a further psychiatric report will be prepared which will determine how you are to be dealt with and what arrangements will need to be made when we next come to Court. As I have discussed with counsel, in the event that there are any issues arising with the single report that is to be prepared leave is reserved for counsel to seek further directions, including whether or not a further report may or may not be necessary. I do not have a date for what we call the “disposition hearing” to take place, what I am going to do is remand you to a callover on 28 June 2023 at 9 am and at that hearing, a further date will be allocated for the disposition hearing to take place.

[11]   In the meantime, while the additional report is being prepared, Mr Yates is to be remanded to the Mason Clinic. Finally, given the orders that I have made today, the trial of this matter is formally vacated.

Powell J