To be released into the community after being designated a special patient requires the sign off of the Minister of Health, the Attorney General and the Director of Mental Health. The man was released more than a decade ago, and later had his status changed to being a patient under the Mental Health Act.
At the time of his second killing he was subject to a Community Treatment Order.
Health NZ confirmed to RNZ that an external review of the care the patient received leading up to their offending was under way. Mental Health Minister Matt Doocey said he had been told about the case by health officials, but declined to comment further.
The man and the victim’s family have lost a bid for name suppression in the High Court. In declining suppression, Justice Karen Grau said while the decision had been “very difficult”, public interest must prevail.
“There is rightly a high degree of public interest in learning of the circumstances in which a person who has been released into the community under the supervision of mental health services has gone on to kill again,” she said.
RNZ is unable to publish details regarding either killings as the decision to lift name suppression has now been taken to the Court of Appeal, meaning the man and his victim can not be identified until the appeal has been determined.
However, RNZ can report the man has a long history of mental health issues. After the brutal killing more than 20 years ago, he was found not guilty of murder by reason of insanity. A judge ordered that he be detained in a special secure unit and not freed without the health minister’s authority.
The latest killing
In her ruling, Justice Grau said that in the weeks leading up to the second killing, the man’s mental health was “rapidly declining”. He was admitted to a mental health facility following an altercation with a relative.
About a week later, he was released. He had issues with a relationship that he was in, and was using cannabis.
Court documents reveal the second killing occurred when he stabbed a person to death.
He later told an associate he had killed the victim.
Asked why, he said the victim was “possessed”.
“I had to do it.”
The police later found the victim dead.
When the man was later found by police and told he was under arrest for murder, he said: “Yes, I know.”
In ruling the man was insane for a second time, the judge said there was no question that he was responsible for the killing.
Two health assessors’ reports had been ordered to address his fitness to stand trial, and whether he had a possible defence of insanity.
Both report writers assessed him as being fit to stand trial and as having an available defence of insanity.
Justice Grau said he was “mentally impaired” and suffered from a longstanding diagnosis.
The Crown agreed the only reasonable verdict was that of “act proven but not criminally responsible on account of insanity”.
In her judgment, the judge addressed the victim impact statement. There was “shock, disbelief, and grief” in relation to the victim’s death.
The offending was described as a “cruel and heartless act”.
“The whānau feels that the mental health system has failed.”
The judge said the criminal charge “could not unpick what has happened in the system and what could and should have done, but it is hoped that answers will come, both for the whānau and for the wider community”.
The defendant was described as a “caring person when he was well”. But, at the time of the killing he was “clearly unwell”.
‘Acutely unwell’
As part of the court process, the man was assessed by two psychiatrists — Dr Justin Barry-Walsh and Dr Greg Young.
The reports concluded he had suffered a relapse and was “acutely unwell” when he killed the victim.
Barry-Walsh interviewed the man twice. After the first interview, his opinion was that the man was “actively psychotic”, with cannabis use likely contributing to the relapse.
During the short period of time between when he was released from hospital and the killing, his mental health deteriorated.
“In Dr Barry-Walsh’s view, [the defendant] was suffering from a disease of the mind and would have a defence of insanity. Nothing suggested he was unable to know the nature and quality of his actions, but he was unable to reason that they were morally wrong. He believed his life was threatened and that he had to kill [the victim].”
Young’s conclusions were the same.
“Dr Young considers [the defendant’s] actions were motivated by his delusions and associated aggressive emotional state that commonly accompanies severe paranoia. He, too, considers [the defendant] would have been incapable of knowing his acts were morally wrong.”
Because of the court’s finding, the man was not convicted, but was made a special patient under the Mental Health Act again.
Young said that, for the defendant, the delusions he suffers from are real.
Justice Grau asked the psychiatrists whether the risk reduced with age.
“Dr Barry-Walsh has said it is the case that the risk of violence can decrease as a person ages, but the rate at which people age is individual. A level of risk may still be elevated long into the future, but if ageing is quicker, then the risk may reduce. Age also affects illness so that presentation may change. Age then is a factor, but it can’t be relied on as reducing risk.”
‘A very difficult decision’
The victim’s family requested permanent name suppression for the victim. Both psychiatrists supported name suppression for the man.
Young said the likelihood the defendant may need placement in aged residential care in the future would be a “difficult matter” if his name was not suppressed “because of the stigma involved”.
“He considers that, in future, if [the defendant] is seeking an ordinary life, that would be more in reach if he has name suppression.”
Justice Grau said that while she had the “utmost sympathy” for the whānau, she was unable to grant suppression.
“I have found this decision a very difficult one, and I must say, it is one that I make most reluctantly,” she said.
She said she had declined name suppression because the defendant’s name and details had already been reported in the past, and because this was a case where the public interest in open justice must prevail.
“There is rightly a high degree of public interest in learning of the circumstances in which a person who has been released into the community under the supervision of mental health services has gone on to kill again.”
The judge said it was a case where the man had killed another person while suffering from mental illness “against a backdrop of apparent significant failures in the mental health system”.
“These are matters that the public has an interest and an entitlement to know about.”
The man also posed an “ongoing and serious risk to public safety”, and the public had a “legitimate interest in knowing the identity of a person who poses such a risk”.
“That includes people in the future, with whom [the defendant] might be placed, and I refer there to Dr Young’s comments about the potential for aged care in the future. I also note that there are victims of [the defendant’s] previous homicide who have a very real and very legitimate interest in knowing that this has happened again.”
Review under way
In a statement to RNZ, the director of mental health, Dr John Crawshaw, said they were limited in what they could say regarding the case as there was ongoing legal action and name suppression in place.
Crawshaw confirmed there were specific processes set out under the Criminal Procedure Act and the Mental Health Act that must be followed when the status of a special patient is reviewed or changed.
“The thresholds for decision making under the act are long-standing. These processes are always followed.”
When a patient was moved from special patient status they were frequently subject to continued compulsory treatment orders, Crawshaw said.
“The Ministry of Health has provided information to the Minister of Mental Health about some aspects of this case under the no surprises principle, but it has not provided a formal briefing. The event and investigations all began prior to the current minister’s time in office.”
Mental Health Minister Matt Doocey said his office had received some information under the no surprises principle.
A Health New Zealand spokesperson said an external review of the care the patient received leading up to their offending was in progress.
- RNZ
