New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

New Zealand Case Law

Unfitness to stand trial

  • 14 Sept 2020

    R v TONGIA [2020] NZHC 2382

    Citation
    [2020] NZHC 2382
    Court
    High Court

    For a defendant who is permanently unfit the s10 involvement hearing operates as the practical alternative to trial and where objective evidence raises self-defence/defence of another the Crown must disprove that defence on the balance of probabilities; psychiatric evidence of the defendant's disability is irrelevant to the assessment of the circumstances for self-defence but police statements and objective witness evidence are admissible and probative; applying those principles, the Crown failed to disprove self-defence/defence of another and the defendant was not involved in the offences ch…

    • Section 10 criminal procedure (mentally impaired persons) act 2003
    • Self-defence
    • Defence of another
    • Unfitness to stand trial
    • Standard of proof
    • Admissibility of evidence

  • 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.

    • Fitness to plead
    • Mentally impaired persons inquiry
    • Unfitness to stand trial
    • Section 10 inquiry (causation on balance of probabilities)
    • Name suppression

  • 17 Dec 2019

    C (CA362/2018) v R [2020] NZCA 653

    Citation
    [2020] NZCA 653
    Court
    Court of Appeal

    On the evidence before the Court (medical reports, treating clinicians' opinions, trial transcript and expert opinion), appellant was not shown to be unfit to stand trial at the time; his informed decision to self-represent and to decline cross-examination did not render the judge-alone trial unfair because his defences were adequately put and he did not lose any real possibility of acquittal; the two-year sentencing discount for mental impairment was within range and appropriate absent evidence of a causal link between impairment and offending.

    • Fitness to stand trial
    • Self-representation
    • Unfitness to stand trial
    • Standby counsel
    • Cross-examination
    • Sentencing discount for mental impairment

  • 21 Aug 2018

    CHRISTIE v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2018] NZHC 2149

    Citation
    [2018] NZHC 2149
    Court
    High Court

    Leave was granted and all convictions set aside because consistent contemporaneous and later psychiatric and psychological reports (1994–2016) established a moderate, permanent intellectual disability that caused suggestibility and an inability to participate meaningfully in the trial process, making a miscarriage of justice likely; those considerations outweighed delay, prejudice to the Crown and the public interest in finality.

    • Fitness to plead
    • Unfitness to stand trial
    • Intellectual disability
    • Inherent jurisdiction
    • Leave to appeal out of time
    • Miscarriage of justice

  • 8 Dec 2017

    R v MARKS [2017] NZHC 3048

    Citation
    [2017] NZHC 3048
    Court
    High Court

    Judge found on the balance of probabilities that Marks committed the act constituting the indecent assault; medical reports established intellectual disability causing serious cognitive and adaptive deficits; because he could not adequately understand the nature and likely severe sentencing consequences of a guilty plea in the third strike context nor communicate adequately with counsel, he is unfit to stand trial; accordingly he must be remanded under s 23 for inquiries and assessment under the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003.

    • Unfitness to stand trial
    • Assessment under criminal procedure (mentally impaired persons) act 2003
    • Relevance of three strikes complexity to fitness
    • Remand for inquiries under s 23
    • Admissibility of admissions

  • 8 Apr 2016

    R v WARRINGTON [2016] NZHC 614

    Citation
    [2016] NZHC 614
    Court
    High Court

    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…

    • Special patient order
    • Unfitness to stand trial
    • Name suppression
    • Risk assessment (hcr-20)
    • Autism spectrum disorder