R v K [2014] NZHC 1441 (27 June 2014)

Last Updated: 4 July 2014

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS, OF ACCUSED PROHIBITED BY SECTION

_{201 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

CRI 2013-019-4801 [2014] NZHC 1441

THE QUEEN

v

_K

Hearing:	27 June 2014
Counsel:	B D Vanderkolk for Crown P L Murray for Accused
Judgment:	27 June 2014

_{JUDGMENT ON DISPOSITION OF RONALD YOUNG J}

[1] Mr K was charged with murder. I have found Mr K not guilty but insane of the murder. It is clear from the background facts that Mr K had become mentally ill in the period leading up to the killing. He had been driving from Wellington north and he arrived at Otaki, he convinced his cousin, the deceased with him at the time, to stop the vehicle and take some time at Otaki. They parked at Otaki Beach and made their bed there. He then attacked his cousin, wrestling him to the ground and

_{eventually suffocating and killing him.}

R v K [2014] NZHC 1441 [27 June 2014]

[2] After his arrest and his appearance in Court, a series of reports were prepared by Dr Barry-Walsh and Dr Gordon Lehany as to Mr K’s mental health. Their evidence was that at the time of the killing Mr K suffered from a mental illness which meant he was insane. The Crown did not contest that assertion and pursuant to s 20 of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 I concluded that Mr K was not guilty but insane on 2 May 2014.

[3] I then referred to the psychiatrists’ questions of what they considered to be the appropriate disposition of Mr K’s case with particular reference to ss 24 and 25 of that Act.

[4] I now have those reports and in addition I have reread the previous reports relating to Mr K. I am satisfied that I should make an order under s 24(2)(a) of the Act that Mr K be retained as a special patient under the Mental Health Act 1969.

[5] It is appropriate that I quote from Dr Barry-Walsh’s report:

Mr K is mentally disordered within the meaning of Mental Health Act. He has a disorder characterised by hallucinations, delusions and disorder of mood. As a result of his mental illness he has attacked and killed his cousin. There is therefore a clear nexus between mental illness and risk to others. Given the rapid onset of his illness, his failure to recognise and failure of others to recognise he was becoming unwell and the tragic and catastrophic events that followed, noting also the time it has taken for him to respond to treatment and the concurrent misuse of substances, I am satisfied that it is both in the interests of Mr K and the safety of the community that he receive a disposition as a special patient. I cannot see any viable clinical alternative to this.

[6] Dr Lehany has made a similar assessment. He considers that Mr K’s risk will remain high for the rest of his life in that should he relapse into psychosis he would immediately be a risk to others. On the basis of the evidence, therefore, I agree with their assessment. I am satisfied the evidence overwhelmingly requires that Mr K be made a special patient. I make the order accordingly.

[7] I am also satisfied the grounds under s 200 of the Sentencing Act are made out entitling Mr K to final suppression of his name. It is clear that publication of his name has the capacity to have a serious affect on both his treatment and rehabilitation. That is sufficient to overcome the threshold test in s 200. The

_{suppression of name order will be made final.}

Solicitors:

Ben Vanderkolk & Associates, Palmerston North

P L Murray, Barrister & Solicitor, Palmerston North

Ronald Young J