13 Dec 2023
The CPMIP Act applies to Youth Court proceedings under pt 4 of the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989 as a whole subject to necessary adaptations; the Youth Court may order a s333 OT Act report and, in appropriate circumstances via Schedule 1 and CPA s174, may access s38 CPMIP assessments, and must apply OT Act principles when exercising CPMIP powers.
12 Dec 2023
The Court concluded the record showed reasonable accommodations were made and that appellant, with counsel, had the opportunity to consider and enter guilty pleas knowingly and voluntarily; there was no persuasive evidence his medical conditions or custody treatment prevented him understanding or intending his pleas or that the convictions were unjust, so no miscarriage of justice arose and the appeal was dismissed.
26 Oct 2023
The Court granted an extension of time but dismissed leave to appeal because the applicant's submissions raised no question of general or public importance and the factual and evidential material lacked sufficient prospects of success to meet the statutory test for name suppression or to show a miscarriage of justice; the Court of Appeal's assessment that the statutory thresholds were not met was sound.
29 Aug 2023
Given consistent psychiatric evidence that the defendant suffers ongoing, active schizophrenia with partial insight, continued hallucinations, need for clozapine and intensive rehabilitation, the court was satisfied the high 'necessary' threshold in s24(2)(a) was met to protect the public and facilitate appropriate treatment; less restrictive s25 orders were unsuitable; name suppression threshold not met.
19 Jul 2023
On unanimous and persuasive psychiatric evidence the defendant was mentally impaired but fit to stand trial, and at the time of the offence was insane within s 23 Crime Act 1961 (incapable of knowing his act was morally wrong); accordingly the court found act proven but not criminally responsible and acquitted him of murder, remanding him for disposition inquiries under the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003.
5 Jul 2023
Answer to both questions is no: in the circumstances of this case the presiding judge did not have jurisdiction to record deemed not guilty pleas on 27 July 2021 because s 39 requirements were not satisfied; and it cannot be in the defendant's interests under s 8(1) to postpone the fitness determination and remand the defendant in custody solely because no hospital bed is available — all relevant factual circumstances must be considered.
28 Jun 2023
The prosecution is permanently stayed because on the balance of probabilities the defendant, aged 91 and suffering terminal metastatic cancer with associated pain, opioid use, major depressive disorder and a mild neurocognitive disorder, cannot effectively participate in a complex six-to-eight week trial, is incapable of giving coherent, reliable evidence, accommodations would not mitigate progressive impairment, and nearly 50 years' delay with numerous unavailable defence witnesses compounds prejudice so that a fair trial is impossible.
13 Jun 2023
The 14-day limit in s 38(2)(b) and (c) and the 30-day extension in s 40 refer to the period of detention for the purpose of carrying out an assessment, not to a mandatory deadline for preparation or filing of the assessment report; s 38 does not prescribe a statutory time limit for provision of s 38 reports, although reports must be provided without undue delay to avoid possible NZBORA breaches. The appeal is dismissed.
12 May 2023
Leave to appeal was granted because the application raised two properly identifiable and arguable questions of law: (1) whether the presiding Judge had jurisdiction to enter not guilty pleas after ordering s 38 health assessments, and (2) whether it is lawful or in the defendant's interests under s 8(1) CP(MIP) Act to postpone a fitness determination and remand solely because no hospital bed is available; the High Court directed that these questions proceed to hearing with timetable directions.
1 May 2023
Fresh evidence admitted in part (limited to affidavits of trial counsel, Korean contact, defence psychiatrist background and limited use of post-trial expert report); there was no miscarriage of justice: fitness finding was properly reached, jury directions were adequate, and late disclosures and limited preparation time did not materially prejudice the defence or create a real prospect of a different verdict; appeal dismissed and conviction affirmed.