New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Insanity acquittal

Legal area

Court

2 Nov 2023

C v R [2023] NZHC 3099

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3099
Court

High Court

Uncontested psychiatric evidence established a real and appreciable risk that publication would cause extreme hardship (relapse of schizophrenia, severe emotional distress, impeded rehabilitation) and could exacerbate suicide risk; those risks could not be dismissed as remote and, when balanced against open justice and public interest in a serious public stabbing acquittal, the risks favoured permanent suppression; the District Court judge erred and suppression was ordered.
29 Aug 2023

R v BUCHANAN [2023] NZHC 2373

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2373
Court

High Court

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.
23 Sept 2022

BANGERA v R [2022] NZCA 451

Citation

[2022] NZCA 451
Court

Court of Appeal

Publication of the appellant's name would likely cause hardship by hindering rehabilitation and risking relapse, but the evidence did not meet the very high statutory threshold of 'extreme hardship' under s200(2); accordingly, on balance the principle of open justice prevails and permanent name suppression is refused.
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.
20 Apr 2020

LINDA JUDITH POND v R [2020] NZSC 37

Citation

[2020] NZSC 37
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal dismissed because the Court of Appeal correctly concluded the proceedings were not proceedings "under" the MHA for s 25 purposes, applied s 200 CPA appropriately, identified no error of law or fact warranting further appeal, and found no matter of general or public importance or risk of miscarriage of justice justifying leave.
12 Oct 2018

R v GERRARD-COLLIER [2018] NZHC 2651

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2651
Court

High Court

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.
11 Dec 2017

W (CA639/2016) v R [2017] NZCA 580

Citation

[2017] NZCA 580
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court allowed the application to adduce fresh evidence and held publication of the appellant's name would be likely to lead to identification of her child (real and appreciable risk under s200(2)(f)); balancing open justice against the need to protect the innocent child, the court concluded the balance clearly favoured permanent suppression of the appellant's and connected person B's identity under s200 and s202.
1 Dec 2017

R v FRANK NO 2 [2017] NZHC 2965

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2965
Court

High Court

Given the extreme and unexpected violence of the offence, the defendant's serious mental disorder, the early stage of his forensic treatment, continued vulnerability to decompensation and suicidality, and the clear psychiatric recommendation, detention under s 24(2)(a) as a special patient in a hospital is necessary to protect the public and to provide the intensive, secure, long-term treatment required; therefore the court ordered detention under s 24(2)(a).
15 Sept 2017

R v TAMATI-MOKA [2017] NZHC 2235

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2235
Court

High Court

The defendant was ordered detained as a special patient under s 24(2)(a) because, although clinical reports show recent improvement under compulsory medication in a secure environment, that improvement is recent and dependent on supervised treatment; the interests of public safety and the need for an additional statutory layer of oversight (special patient status) required detention rather than disposition under s 25(1)(a).
3 Mar 2016

RS v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2016] NZHC 344

Citation

[2016] NZHC 344
Court

High Court

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.