RS v Police - [2016] NZHC 344

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

CRI-2015-412-000027 [2016] NZHC 344

BETWEEN
RS

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 16 December 2015 and 4 February 2016

Appearances:

A Stevens for Appellant
R P Bates for Respondent

Judgment:

3 March 2016

JUDGMENT OF GENDALL J

Introduction

[1] On 2 April 2015, the District Court at Dunedin found the appellant RS (the appellant) not guilty by reason of insanity on one charge of threatening to cause grievous bodily harm.1

[2] Following this finding, on 25 May 2015 Judge Crosbie in the District Court made an order under s 24(2)(a) of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 (the CPMIP Act) that the appellant be detained in Waikari Hospital as a special patient under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992 (the MHCAT Act).2 This order was made following a recommendation to this effect by Dr Bathgate, a consultant forensic
psychiatrist for the Southern District Health Board.

1 New Zealand Police v Smith [2015] NZDC 5887.
2 New Zealand Police v Smith DC Dunedin CRI-2014-025-002265, 25 May 2015.

RS v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2016] NZHC 344 [3 March 2016]

[3] The appellant now appeals the order making him a special patient. Mrs Stevens, his counsel submits that proper disposal of this matter should have seen a less restrictive order being made under s 25(1)(a) of the CPMIP Act requiring the appellant to be treated simply as a patient under the MHCAT Act. Following the filing of this appeal, this Court had granted leave for the appellant to adduce a further psychiatric report to challenge the findings and recommendations of Dr Bathgate. That report was produced by Dr Barry-Walsh, another consultant forensic psychiatrist, employed by the Capital Coast District Health Board.

Background facts

[4] Some background to the offending and other events in question here is useful. On 18 November 2014, the appellant was waiting outside his neighbour’s house in suburban Invercargill. When his neighbour arrived home, the appellant threatened him, saying “I will slit your fucken throat”. The appellant had a hand concealed in his pocket which he then withdrew forming a closed fist by his side. The neighbour went inside his property and as he did, the appellant told him to watch his back.

[5] It appears the appellant had developed a belief that his neighbour was constantly threatening him through the walls of the adjoining flat. The appellant maintained that it became so bad at one stage that he hid in his bathroom so that he would no longer hear the noise. He also went on to describe hearing the same threats from strangers. It was concluded that at the time the appellant was subject to a number of auditory hallucinations which he himself had misinterpreted as a real threat from both neighbours and people in the community.

[6] In 2013, it seems the appellant developed clear signs of psychotic illness when he was in prison. He suffered from paranoid delusional beliefs and abnormal perceptual…

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 RS v Police

Details

AGLC: RS v Police [2016] NZHC 344
Case: [2016] NZHC 344
Decision Date: 3 March 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, RS, the appellant, appealed against a decision made by the District Court to detain him as a special patient under section 24(2)(a) of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003. The appellant's counsel argued that an order under section 25(1)(a) of the same Act, which would have required the appellant to be treated simply as a patient under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992, would have been more appropriate. The court was required to determine whether the District Court erred in making the order that the appellant be detained as a special patient.

The court considered the two psychiatric reports provided by Dr Bathgate and Dr Barry-Walsh. Both psychiatrists agreed that the appellant suffered from schizophrenia and that his condition could be treated with medication. However, Dr Bathgate believed that the appellant had a long history of failing to take medication, which was exacerbated by drug and alcohol abuse, and that the only way to ensure that he continued with his necessary medication was under a special patient order. On the other hand, Dr Barry-Walsh believed that ensuring the appellant took his ongoing medication should be able to be properly managed under a community treatment order.

The court found that the appellant's limited insight, minimal community support mechanisms, and history of failing to maintain his medication or lapsing into substance abuse, posed a real risk to public safety. The court concluded that an order under section 24(2) providing for the more robust processes of a special patient order to manage and address the appellant's risk was necessary in the interests of the public. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The final order was that the appellant be detained as a special patient in terms of section 24(2)(a) of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003.

Orders