9 Mar 2023
On the evidence, the acts constituting the offences were proved beyond reasonable doubt and the defendant was suffering a disease of the mind within s 23 of the Crimes Act at the time, rendering him not criminally responsible; accordingly he is acquitted on account of insanity and detained as a special patient under s 24(2) of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003.
26 Sept 2019
Given the psychiatrist's opinion that the defendant suffers an irreversible neurocognitive disorder causing serious risk to others, and because a special patient order is necessary to manage that risk, allow proper assessment for secure community placements and protect the public, the court must detain the defendant in hospital as a special patient under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992 pursuant to s24(2)(a) of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003.
31 Jul 2019
On the evidence, in particular the consultant psychiatrist's disposition report, the defendant meets the threshold for a special patient because he has schizophrenia, poses a serious risk to others if medication and abstinence are not maintained, and has not been tested in the community; therefore a s 24(2)(a) order is necessary to protect the public.
12 Oct 2018
Applying the New Zealand Court of Appeal guidance in M and having regard to extensive clinical reports that identified ongoing risk and treatment needs, the only appropriate disposition was to order the defendant to be held as a special patient under s 24(2)(a) to ensure necessary supervision and that any release requires Ministerial consent.
20 Jul 2018
An order detaining the defendant as a special patient under s 24(2)(a) was necessary because the balance of probabilities supported that she caused the act forming the basis of the charge, she poses ongoing and significant risks to others and herself, her combined intellectual disability and mental disorder create complex treatment needs best met in a secure hospital setting with coordinated forensic psychiatric and intellectual disability services and statutory oversight, and the necessity threshold for a s 24(2) order was therefore satisfied.
9 Feb 2018
Given the serious, unprovoked double homicide, the defendant's diagnosis of treatment‑resistant schizophrenia with persistent psychotic symptoms, substance abuse risk, lack of insight, history of ceased treatment and weapons use while psychotic, and unanimous forensic psychiatric opinion that only secure forensic rehabilitation under a special patient regime would mitigate the risk, it was necessary in the interests of the public to order detention as a special patient under s 24(2)(a) CP (MIP) Act.
8 Apr 2016
Detention as a special patient under s24 was necessary because the defendant presents a significantly high and immediate risk of very serious harm demonstrated by the violent facts of 3 July 2015, longstanding violent behaviour, marked lack of insight and empathy, autistic spectrum disorder unlikely to be remedied in the short term, and high HCR-20 risk scores; less restrictive s25 options did not provide sufficient protective framework. Interim name suppression was lifted because short-term suicide risk had materially reduced and public interest in openness predominated, but permanent suppre…
3 Mar 2016
Given the appellant's long history of serious offending, repeated treatment non-compliance, substance abuse and risk of relapse into psychosis, and despite some mitigating opinion in the second report, the High Court concluded a s 24(2)(a) special patient order was necessary in the interests of the public to ensure robust management and rehabilitation; therefore Judge Crosbie did not err and the appeal is dismissed.