New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Expert psychiatric evidence

Legal area

Court

2 Jul 2021

R v GILL [2021] NZHC 1659

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1659
Court

High Court

On the weight of consistent psychiatric evidence that the defendant suffered a chronic psychotic illness causing entrenched delusions and auditory hallucinations that rendered him incapable of forming the necessary moral judgment, the defendant was insane within s23 at the time of the offences; accordingly he is not guilty by reason of insanity and must be detained as a special patient under s24(2)(a) CPMIP to protect the public and provide treatment.
21 Jun 2021

R v CHANDLER [2021] NZHC 1470

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1470
Court

High Court

On uncontested expert psychiatric evidence the defendant was suffering from schizophrenia with commanding auditory hallucinations at the time of the killing and was therefore incapable of knowing his actions were morally wrong within the meaning of s23 Crimes Act; accordingly under s20(2) CPMIP the Court recorded a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity and ordered detention as a special patient under s24(2)(a) CPMIP as necessary to protect the public.
19 Jun 2020

R v K [2020] NZHC 1403

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1403
Court

High Court

On the evidence of experienced health assessors that s24(2) detention was unnecessary, the absence of actual violence and the prospect of managing risk through enforced medication and clinical supervision, the court declined to detain under s24(2) and instead ordered treatment as a patient under s25(1)(a) with the order to take effect as an inpatient order under s26(1); the court also authorised release of expert reports to treating clinicians and extended interim name suppression.
24 Oct 2017

R v FRANK [2017] NZHC 2587

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2587
Court

High Court

On the balance of probabilities the defendant suffered a disease of the mind (schizoaffective disorder) at the time of the stabbing, believed he was instructed by God to kill his wife and was incapable of realising the act was morally wrong; accordingly, pursuant to s20(2) Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 and s23 Crimes Act 1961 the judge must record a finding of not guilty on account of insanity.
7 Apr 2017

SPITTLE v R [2017] NZCA 116

Citation

[2017] NZCA 116
Court

Court of Appeal

The appeal was dismissed because the Court held that, on the totality of the evidence, including corroborative circumstantial material, contemporaneous correspondence, staff evidence and expert opinion supporting the complainant's reliability, a jury could reasonably be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant's guilt; inconsistencies and delay were explainable and insufficient to render the verdict unreasonable.
10 Mar 2017

R v WAIPOURI [2017] NZHC 402

Citation

[2017] NZHC 402
Court

High Court

On the facts taken most favourably to the accused no properly directed jury could reasonably find that the accused faced an imminent life-threatening danger or that lethal force was a reasonable response; the victim was restrained, unarmed and incapacitated, the accused had alternative courses open and his own evidence showed lack of immediacy, therefore self-defence was withdrawn as a matter of law.
3 Dec 2015

THE QUEEN v TU [2015] NZHC 3045

Citation

[2015] NZHC 3045
Court

High Court

On the balance of probabilities there is sufficient evidence to put the defendant on trial; on expert evidence the defendant is mentally impaired but fit to stand trial; no pre-trial finding of insanity is made because the Crown does not agree that the only reasonable verdict is not guilty by reason of insanity; interim name suppression is not renewed.
26 Jun 2014

CORBETT v PATTERSON AND WESTERN CA303/2011 [2014] NZCA 274

Citation

[2014] 3 NZLR 318
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court upheld the High Court's acceptance of the psychiatrist's expert opinion that the appellant suffered a cyclothymic disorder which materially impaired his ability to understand the issues and to give sufficient instructions in complex litigation; given that incapacity proved on the balance of probabilities in relation to the specific litigation, appointment of a litigation guardian was necessary and proper and the High Court orders were affirmed.
19 Apr 2013

BRITZ v R SC 17/2013

Citation

SC 17/2013
Court

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court refused leave: the Court of Appeal correctly weighed conflicting expert evidence and reasonably concluded the appellant was fit to plead and stand trial so no miscarriage of justice under s385(1)(c) occurred; the practical difficulty of later reconstruction does not amount to a different legal threshold, and counsel's failure to pursue an intelligence assessment did not render the trial unfair or inevitably trigger the 2003 Act.
11 Jun 2010

LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY V W HC WN CIV 2009-485-002191

Citation

openlaw-5b33d0b9_f544_447a_a6aa_61bf8c63f966.pdf
Court

High Court

The recall application was dismissed because no very special reason was shown to justify recalling the judgment; the challenged paragraphs were properly relied on to demonstrate that the LSA and LARP lacked the Crown's expert psychiatric opinions necessary for lawful and reasonable decision-making about legal aid and limitation, and their inclusion did not breach natural justice nor was likely to prejudice the trial judge.