Tuira v The the Queen

Case [2022] NZCA 394


IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

 CA24/2021
 [2022] NZCA 394

BETWEEN

GAVIN JOHN TUIRA
Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN
Respondent

Hearing:

23 February 2022
Further submissions received 11 March 2022

Court:

Courtney, Peters and Cull JJ

Counsel:

Appellant in person
JEL Carruthers for Respondent
N P Chisnall as counsel assisting

Judgment:

24 August 2022 at 10 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for an extension of time is granted.

BThe application for leave to appeal is granted.

CThe appeal is allowed.

D    The order made under s 24(2)(a) is set aside and substituted with an order under s 25(1)(a).  We specify that the order is to be an inpatient order.  

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Courtney J)

Introduction

  1. Gavin Tuira has struggled with poor mental health his whole life.  His engagement with mental health services dates back to the 1970s, and he has a longstanding diagnosis of treatment-resistant paranoid schizophrenia.  He also has a large number of previous convictions, including for violent and sexual offending.  In 2010 Mr Tuira was living in a boarding house in Hamilton.  He was suffering from delusions which caused him to believe that his relationship with the landlady, Ms H, was an intimate one.  Mr Tuira formed the view that Ms H had been unfaithful to him.  On 2 December 2010 he took a knife from the kitchen and went into Ms H’s bedroom.  He punched her at least three times, indecently assaulted her by attempting to pull her pyjama pants off, and threatened her with the knife.  He also threatened a second complainant, who had intervened upon hearing the commotion, with the knife.  Mr Tuira was charged with aggravated burglary, injuring with intent to injure, indecent assault and assault with a weapon. 

  2. In 2012 Mr Tuira was found to be unfit to stand trial by Judge Ruth, and detained as a special patient under s 24(2)(a) of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2011 (CPMIP).[1]  In 2013, Mr Tuira was found to be fit to stand trial.  He was returned to prison for that purpose.  He pleaded guilty to the charges.  In 2014, Mr Tuira applied to vacate the guilty pleas, but this application was dismissed.[2]  He was sentenced to preventive detention with a minimum period of five years’ imprisonment.[3]  In 2017, however, Mr Tuira’s convictions were set aside on appeal and a retrial was ordered.[4]  In 2019, following a hearing in the District Court before Judge Cocurullo, Mr Tuira was again found to be unfit to stand trial.[5]  Judge Cocurullo made an order that he be detained as a special patient pursuant to s 24(2)(a) of CPMIP.[6] 

    [1]R v Tuira CRI-2010-019-10002, 13 February 2012 (Ruling 1 of Judge Ruth) [Decision of Judge Ruth] at [22].

    [2]R v Tuira DC Hamilton CRI-2010-019-10002, 10 October 2014 [Decision of Judge Gibson].

    [3]R v Tuira [2015] NZHC 429 [Sentencing decision].

    [4]Tuira v R [2018] NZCA 43 [Court of Appeal judgment].

    [5]Police…

Continue reading Tuira v The the Queen

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Tuira v The the Queen [2022] NZCA 394
Case
[2022] NZCA 394
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Tuira was charged with a number of offences and was found unfit to stand trial. The court was required to determine the appropriate disposition of Tuira under the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2004. The legal issues the court had to decide were whether Tuira was mentally disordered and if so, whether a compulsory treatment order was necessary under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether Tuira's intellectual disability warranted care under the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003. The court also had to consider whether Tuira posed a serious danger to himself or others, and if he could take care of himself.

The court determined that Tuira was mentally disordered, meeting the criteria under the Mental Health Act, as he exhibited delusions and disorders of mood and perception. The court was satisfied, based on the evidence of health assessors, that Tuira required compulsory treatment. The court found that Tuira's condition posed a serious danger to himself and others, and he was unable to take care of himself. Therefore, the court made a compulsory treatment order under the Mental Health Act, specifying it as a community treatment order. The court also stayed the proceedings in which Tuira was found unfit to stand trial, preventing him from being charged again with the same offences during the period of the treatment order.

In light of the findings, the court ordered that Tuira be treated as a patient under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992 and stayed the proceedings against him. The court's decision ensured that Tuira received the necessary treatment for his mental disorder while protecting the public and preventing further legal proceedings for the same offences.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

If the court is not satisfied that an order under s 24(2) is necessary, s 25 requires the court to make an alternative order. Section 25 provides:25Alternative decisions in respect of defendant unfit to stand trial or insane(1)If, after considering the matters specified in section 24(1) (a) and (b) concerning a defendant found unfit to stand trial or acquitted on account of his or her insanity, the court is not satisfied that an order under section 24(2) is necessary, the court must deal with the defendant—(a)by ordering that the defendant be treated as a patient under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992; or(b)by ordering that the defendant be cared for as a care recipient under the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003; or(c)if the person is liable to be detained under a sentence of imprisonment, by deciding not to make an order; or(d)by ordering the immediate release of the defendant.(2)Before the court makes an order under subsection (1)(a), the court must be satisfied on the evidence of 1 or more health assessors (at least 1 of whom must be a psychiatrist) that the defendant is mentally disordered.(3)Before the court makes an order under subsection (1)(b), the court must be satisfied on the evidence of 1 or more health assessors that the defendant—(a)has an intellectual disability; and(b)has been assessed under Part 3 of the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003; and(c)is to receive care under a care programme completed under section 26 of that Act.(4)In the exercise of its powers under subsection (1), the court may take into account any undertaking given by, or on behalf of, the defendant that the defendant will undergo or continue to undergo a particular programme or course of treatment. An order under s 25(1)(a) is to be regarded as a compulsory treatment order for the purposes of the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1993 (MHCAT) and the Judge must specify whether it is an inpatient or community treatment order.[21] Under MHCAT a compulsory treatment order can only be made if the person is “mentally disordered”. The term “mental disorder” is defined as:[22]mental disorder, in relation to any person, means an abnormal state of mind (whether of a continuous or an intermittent nature), characterised by delusions, or by disorders of mood or perception or volition or cognition, of such a degree that it—(a)poses a serious danger to the health or safety of that person or of others; or(b)seriously diminishes the capacity of that person to take care of himself or herself;—and mentally disordered, in relation to any such person, has a corresponding meaning[21]CPMIP, s 26(1).[22]Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992 [MHCAT], s 2. Finally, when a court makes an order under s 25 in respect of a defendant who has been found unfit to stand trial, it may order that the proceedings in which the finding was made are stayed. While the stay is in force the defendant cannot be charged again with the same offences that were the subject of the proceeding.[23][23]CPMIP, s 27.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.