R v L HC Whangarei CRI-2007-027-2932 [2009] NZHC 2007 (27 October 2009)

Last Updated: 29 January 2016

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

_{CRI-2007-027-002932}

THE QUEEN

v

L

Hearing: 27 October 2009

Appearances: Mr K R Thomas and Ms A L Hyndman for Crown

Mr A B Fairley for Ms L

Judgment: 27 October 2009

_{(ORAL) JUDGMENT OF PRIESTLEY J}

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, Whangarei

Counsel:

_{Mr A B Fairley, Whangarei}

R V L HC WHA CRI-2007-027-002932 27 October 2009

[1] The accused, L , faces an indictment in which she is jointly charged along with another of murdering Norman James L at Kaikohe on

14 November 2007.

[2] At an early stage the defence of insanity, as stipulated under s 23 of the

Crimes Act 1961, was raised.

[3] This matter comes before me today for a hearing before the trial under s 20(2) of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003. I have read the two expert psychiatric reports. The one provided by the Crown from Dr R Wyness is dated 8 September 2009. There is also a report from a defence psychiatrist, Dr R Tapsell, dated 25 August 2008.

[4] Importantly, the two psychiatrists have provided letters to their respective engaging counsel, both in identical terms and both dated 24 September 2009. Both letters express the opinion that the accused has, at least since 2001, suffered from a psychotic illness of schizophrenia. Both experts also opine that on the balance of probabilities at the time of the homicide, her condition of mind was such that she was not responsible for her actions. That opinion was fleshed out in evidence by Dr Tapsell today to include the clinical judgment that at the time of the homicide the accused was incapable of knowing that her actions were morally wrong.

[5] Having considered both reports, the joint view of the psychiatrists and, in particular, the viva voce evidence given today by Dr Tapsell, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities pursuant to s 20(2)(c), that at the time of the homicide the accused was insane within the meaning of s 23 of the Crimes Act.

[6] The practical effect of that finding is that the accused need not stand trial. The consequential effects are identical to a not guilty but insane verdict, were one hypothetically to be returned by a jury.

[7] The Act also requires me to make an order for disposition. Both counsel and both experts are unanimous on that. Accordingly, I make an order pursuant to s 24(2)(a) of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 to the

effect that Tracey L is to be detained in a hospital as a special patient under the provisions of the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992.

[8] I shall in due course release a brief reasons judgment setting out my reasons for this conclusion, although such reasons will really be self-evident given the information responsibly placed before me by both counsel.

[9] Finally, I note that Mr Fairley on valid grounds, supported to some extent by clinical opinion, is withdrawing his application for orders prohibiting publication of the accused’s name.

............................................. Priestley J