Tarapata v The Queen

[2016] NZCA 337

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA447/2015
[2016] NZCA 337

BETWEEN	ZARN TARAPATA Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	4 July 2016
Court:	Harrison, French and Cooper JJ
Counsel:	M M Wilkinson-Smith for Appellant M H Cooke for Respondent
Judgment:	19 July 2016 at 10.15 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

ALeave is granted to the appellant to produce Dr Skipworth’s existing    report at the hearing of his appeal.

B Dr Skipworth or a suitably qualified delegate is directed to prepare a   further report on the appellant’s current mental health and diagnosis.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Harrison J)

1. The appellant, Zarn Tarapata, was found guilty of murder of two men following a trial before Andrews J and a jury in the High Court at Auckland.  He was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 17 years.[1]

   [1]R v Tarapata [2015] NZHC 1594.

2. At trial Mr Tarapata’s counsel conceded that the Crown had established the necessary elements of the murder charges.  His defence of insanity was rejected by the jury. 

3. Mr Tarapata appeals against his conviction on a number of grounds.  His appeal is to be heard by a Divisional Court of this Court later this year.  His primary ground of appeal is that verdicts of not guilty by reason of insanity should be substituted for the jury’s verdicts pursuant to s 235 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. 

4. Mr Tarapata has applied for orders pending the hearing of his appeal, first, granting leave to admit a report by Dr Jeremy Skipworth, a consultant psychiatrist, as fresh evidence, and, second, directing Dr Skipworth or his duly qualified delegate to prepare an assessment report for the purpose of determining whether Mr Tarapata was insane at the time he committed the offences.  Jurisdiction to order the report exists under s 38 of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003. 

5. By way of brief background, it was agreed at trial that Mr Tarapata suffered from real and ongoing psychosis when he committed his offences.  He was being treated with anti-psychotic medication.  The issue for determination at trial was whether the psychosis was due at least in part to an internal disease or was methamphetamine induced.  Psychiatrists called by the Crown and Mr Tarapata gave conflicting evidence on it.  In the event the jury accepted the Crown’s evidence.

6. Dr Skipworth later prepared a report on Mr Tarapata’s condition for sentencing purposes.  He was satisfied that Mr Tarapata satisfied the diagnostic criteria for schizophrenia.  Ms Wilkinson-Smith for Mr Tarapata intends to rely on the report as evidence in support of Mr Tarapata’s appeal ground that he was not guilty by reason of insanity.  She says the report was not available at trial and is directly relevant.  She also seeks an updated report because Dr Skipworth’s original report was prepared one year ago. 

7. Initially the Crown opposed Mr Tarapata’s application.  However, when she appeared before us Ms Cooke withdrew that opposition.  She was satisfied it is in the interests of justice that Dr Skipworth’s existing report be produced at the appeal and an updated report be prepared.

8. In these circumstances we (1) grant Mr Tarapata leave to produce Dr Skipworth’s existing report at the hearing of his appeal; and (2) direct that Dr Skipworth or a suitably qualified delegate prepare a further report on Mr Tarapata’s current mental health and diagnosis pursuant to s 38 of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act for admission at the hearing of his appeal.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent