Legal Research
Cases
Williams v Police

Williams v Police

Case [2024] NZHC 847 18 April 2024

Appeal

Fitness to Stand Trial

Mental Impairment

Intellectual Disability

Unjust Enrichment

Miscarriage of Justice

Criminal Law

Mental Health Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2023-404-543

[2024] NZHC 847

BETWEEN
TETU MARERE WILLIAMS

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 27 February 2024 (Further submissions filed 15 March 2024)

Appearances:

V Letele for Appellant

J E Bragg for Respondent

Judgment:

18 April 2024

JUDGMENT OF WILKINSON-SMITH J

This judgment was delivered by me on 18/04/2024 at 2.30pm.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

……………………………..

Solicitors:
Law and Justice Ltd, Auckland
Kayes Fletcher Walker, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Manukau City

WILLIAMS v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2024] NZHC 847 [18 April 2024]

Introduction

[1] The appellant, Mr Williams, appeals against a District Court decision dated 12 September 2023 finding him fit to stand trial pursuant to s 8A of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 (the CP(MIP) Act).1

[2]The grounds of appeal are that:

(a)the judged erred in failing to give the parties the opportunity to be heard and to call evidence; and

(b)The judge erred in finding the appellant fit to stand trial.

[3] The respondent initially conceded that there had likely been a procedural misstep in the District Court but understandably was not prepared to take a position on the issue of fitness without having heard evidence from the report writers.

[4] The appeal proceeded by way of rehearing in accordance with s 17 of the CP(MIP) Act. On 27 February 2024, the Court heard evidence from Dr Jeremy Skipworth and Dr Kyros Karayiannis.

[5] Following that hearing, both parties filed additional submissions. The appellant submits that both experts found on balance that Mr Williams would be unfit to stand trial and invites the Court to make the following findings:

(a)pursuant to s 8A(1) of the CP(MIP) Act, Mr Williams has a mental impairment due to a diagnosis of intellectual disability mild/moderate; and

(b)pursuant to s 8A(2) and (3)of the CP (MIP) Act, Mr Williams is, on the balance of probabilities, unfit to stand trial.

1 Police v Williams [2023] NZDC 26476.

[6] The respondent submits that, on the basis of the available reports and the evidence of the experts, the Court may consider that the appellant is unfit to stand trial. In that event, the respondent submits that the District Court decision should be quashed, and the matter remitted to the District Court for an involvement hearing pursuant to s 10 of the CP(MIP)Act.

Background

[7]The appellant faces four sets of charges.

Indecent assault

[8] It is alleged that on 10 January 2023 the appellant smacked the complainant on her buttock while she was working at Pak’nSave. The police evidence consists of two witnesses, that of the complainant, and the officer in charge. The defendant told police that he had just swung his hand and it happened to hit the victim and that he did not mean to.

Unlawfully getting into a motor vehicle

[9] The appellant is charged together with his partner for unlawfully getting into a motor vehicle between 9 and 10 January 2022. The…

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 Williams v Police

Details

AGLC: Williams v Police [2024] NZHC 847
Case: [2024] NZHC 847
Decision Date: 18 April 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Williams v Police involves an appeal by the appellant, Tetu Marerei Williams, against a District Court decision that found him fit to stand trial under the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003. The appellant contests the decision on the grounds that the District Court erred by failing to allow the parties to be heard and present evidence, and by incorrectly finding him fit to stand trial. The appeal was heard on rehearing, with evidence presented by Dr Jeremy Skipworth and Dr Kyros Karayiannis, both of whom concluded that the appellant is likely unfit to stand trial. The court was required to determine whether the District Court's decision contained procedural errors that led to a miscarriage of justice. Given the statutory requirement for both parties to present evidence on fitness, the court found a procedural misstep as the report writers were not present at the hearing in the District Court. The court held that the appellant's intellectual disability, which is severe and irreversible, means he lacks the capacity to adequately participate in a trial. The Court concluded that the appellant is unfit to stand trial, quashed the District Court's decision, and remitted the matter to the District Court for an involvement hearing.

In its final orders, the court declared that the appellant is unfit to stand trial under sections 8A(2) and (3) of the CP(MIP) Act, quashed the District Court's finding of fitness, and remitted the matter to the District Court for an involvement hearing as per section 10 of the CP(MIP) Act.

Orders