district court logo

New Zealand Police v Jackson [2018] NZDC 3466

Published 15 January 2019

Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003, s 20 — Crimes Act 1961, s 23 — insanity defence. The defendant appeared before the Court charged with assault, and invoked a defence under the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act (CP(MIP)) as not guilty on account of insanity. The defendant had assaulted a family member by throwing a knife. However three days prior to the assault, the defendant was referred to the urgent response service of the mental health crisis team. The defendant's family were considering whether to invoke the provisions of the CP(MIP) when the assault occurred. The defendant was then admitted to a residential mental health care facility where she remained for approximately 21 days. CP(MIP), s 20(2), sets out criteria to be satisfied for a defence of insanity. The question before the Judge was set out in s 20(2)(c), whether the Judge is satisfied, on the basis of expert evidence, that the defendant was insane within the meaning of s 23 of the Crimes Act at the time of the commission of the offence. Under the Crimes Act, s 23, the two considerations the Judge must be satisfied of are that the defendant suffered a disease of the mind at the time of the assault, and that that disease of the mind was to such an extent that the defendant was incapable of knowing her assault was morally wrong. The defence submitted expert reports prepared by two specialists. The specialists noted the defendant's history of manic episodes, bipolar affective disorder, schizoaffective disorder and history of recent psychiatric care. Both assessed the defendant as being insane before and after the offence, leading the Judge to be satisfied as to the first ground. On whether the defendant had the level of moral awareness to be found insane, the specialists again agreed that the defendant didn't fully understand the quality or consequences of her actions, due to symptoms of her mania and her psychotic illness. The Judge was satisfied that the defendant was not capable of determining the wrongness of her actions at the time of offending. Having found that a not guilty plea due to insanity was an appropriate outcome, a report was therefore directed to be prepared under CP(MIP), s 23(1), to assist with the disposition of this prosecution. Judgment Date: 26 February 2018. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *