New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Fitness to plead

Legal area

Court

11 May 2023

PERSTON v POLICE [2023] NZHC 1115

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1115
Court

High Court

The preponderance of contemporaneous medical evidence established that the appellant had a lifelong, moderate to severe intellectual disability that rendered him unable to plead or stand trial for the offences in question; that rendered the trials unfair in breach of s25 NZBORA and thus miscarriages of justice, permitting the Court (using inherent jurisdiction where necessary) to quash the convictions and grant an extension of time to bring the appeal.
28 Feb 2023

THOMAS v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2023] NZHC 358

Citation

[2023] NZHC 358
Court

High Court

Given uncontested expert evidence of a lifelong significant intellectual disability, absence of any evidence that the disability was identified or accommodated in historical proceedings, the appellant's tendency to give false or embellished admissions, and the lack of records to dispel safety concerns, the remaining convictions were unsafe and must be quashed.
5 Dec 2022

WU v R [2022] NZCA 604

Citation

[2022] NZCA 604
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the judge did not err in fixing the guilty plea discount at 20% because the judge could lawfully consider the strength of the prosecution case and the benefit obtained by withdrawal of the attempted murder charge; delays caused by the fitness inquiry did not require a larger discount but did not invalidate the judge's approach; the resulting end sentence of five years three months was within range for the offending and not manifestly excessive, and immigration consequences are not a proper basis to alter sentences.
22 Apr 2021

HALL v R [2021] NZCA 125

Citation

[2021] NZCA 125
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to bring a second appeal was granted because there was a real risk of miscarriage of justice: the applicant raised a plausible case that the starting point may have been manifestly excessive and that the discount for mental health may not have been correctly calibrated, warranting appellate examination.
14 Oct 2020

FAN v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2020] NZHC 2696

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2696
Court

High Court

The psychiatric report was admissible and established on the balance of probabilities that the appellant was suffering from a disease of the mind and believed his acts were justified by psychotic delusions; this created a real risk that the guilty pleas and convictions were a miscarriage of justice, therefore the appeal is allowed, the convictions are quashed and no retrial ordered.
12 Jun 2020

R v T [2020] NZHC 1323

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1323
Court

High Court

On the evidence of two consultant psychiatrists and unchallenged factual material (witness statements, police evidence, contemporaneous texts and post‑mortem), the Court found on the balance of probabilities that Ms T is unfit to stand trial due to mental impairment and that the Crown's evidence is sufficient on the balance of probabilities to establish she caused the victim's death; matter adjourned to a disposition hearing to determine detention and related orders.
20 Feb 2020

C v R [2020] NZHC 225

Citation

[2020] NZHC 225
Court

High Court

Section 27 does not implicitly dismiss charges when a defendant is released under s25; absent a court stay under s27 the original proceedings remain alive and mirrored replacement charges may be laid, and periods of remand detention served under the initial proceedings are pre-sentence detention under s91 Parole Act 2002 and therefore count as time served for sentencing purposes; conviction appeal dismissed, sentence appeal allowed and remitted for resentencing with remand time treated as time served.
6 Aug 2019

R v TIHEMA & ORS [2019] NZHC 1899

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1899
Court

High Court

The application for severance was refused; the judge concluded a joint trial of the three defendants is necessary and appropriate and reserved full reasons to be delivered subsequently.
29 May 2019

BURROWS v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2019] NZHC 1198

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1198
Court

High Court

High Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this appeal because there had been no finding under s14(2)(b) of the CPMIP Act by the District Court; alternatively, on the merits the District Court judge correctly applied the s9 standard and was entitled to find on the balance of probabilities that the appellant committed the acts forming the basis of the harassment charges and mens rea is not relevant at the s9 stage.
6 Mar 2019

METHVEN v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2019] NZHC 357

Citation

[2019] NZHC 357
Court

High Court

The guilty pleas were knowingly and voluntarily entered after competent legal advice and repeated confirmation on the record; the prison medical notes are insufficient to show the appellant was unfit to plead; there is no credible evidence of a tenable defence because the appellant remained on the property after being repeatedly asked to leave; accordingly no miscarriage of justice occurred and the pleas were not vacated.