Lauren Dickason trial: Defence says children killed ‘out of love’ by mum ‘severely’ disturbed by ongoing postpartum depression

WARNING: This story contains graphic and sensitive content.

Lauren Dickason killed her three children “out of love” after deciding to take her own life and not wanting to leave the little girls “to live without a mum”, her lawyer has told a jury at her murder trial.

The defence has revealed Dickason will not take the stand herself at the trial in the High Court at Christchurch - but a number of experts, her mother and another family member will give evidence that she was “severely” unwell and suffering from ongoing postpartum depression when she smothered her three daughters to death in September 2021.

“Lauren was in such a dark place, so removed from reality so suicidal, disordered, that when she decided to kill herself she thought that she had to take the girls with her,” defence lawyer Anne Toohey told the jury this morning.

“Lauren felt inadequate as a mother, she found it hard to cope. This was spontaneous. Lauren was in a dark place.

“She believed life was no longer worth living - for either her or her children.

“She decided to kill herself and she felt that they were all better off dead.”

Lauren Anne Dickason appears in court on the first day of her two-week trial for the murder of her three children.

Dickason, 42, is on trial in the High Court at Christchurch charged with murdering her daughters Liane - who was a week off her 7th birthday - and twins Maya and Karla, 2.

The sisters were found dead in their beds by their father Graham Dickason when he returned home from a work function.

The family had only been in New Zealand for a matter of weeks after emigrating from South Africa.

Dickason admits smothering the children to death, but has pleaded not guilty to the murder charges by reason of insanity or infanticide.

While the Crown acknowledges Dickason suffered from sometimes-serious depression, it maintains she knew what she was doing when she killed the girls.

Last week, Crown Prosecutor Andrew McRae alleged Dickason was an angry and frustrated woman who was “resentful of how the children stood in the way of her relationship with her husband” and killed them “methodically and purposefully, perhaps even clinically”.

The defence case - this is not murder

Defence lawyer Anne Toohey opened the defence case just before 11am.

She said there was no dispute that Dickason killed the children and then tried - using multiple methods - to take her own life.

“Her intention was to go to bed and to never wake up,” said Toohey.

“The question is why she did that. All three defence experts say her mind was disturbed by reason of her postpartum depression arising from childbirth.

“All of the defence experts agree that there was an altruistic motive. That means that Lauren killed her children out of love.

“In her mind, she was killing them out of love - she was killing herself and she didn’t want to leave the children… she was so sure this was the right thing to do she persisted.”

In the weeks after the alleged murders Dickason told psychiatric specialists she still felt it was best that her children were dead, such was her bleak and hopeless outlook - which Toohey said was the result of her significant mental disturbance.

Toohey said Dickason was “severely” unwell - and had been effectively spiralling into a deep depression with suicidal thoughts for months.

“This is about postpartum depression and a mother who killed her children,” she said.

“She did not want to leave her children without a mum. She also did not want her children to suffer from having such a bad mother.

“This was an impulsive decision - she did not plan it.”

Graham and Lauren Dickason with their daughters before the alleged murders. Photo / Facebook

Toohey said Dickason was “a highly intelligent, capable person”, a doctor by profession whose “entire vocation in life is geared toward saving lives”.

“Why did she kill her three beautiful girls, who she fought for years to get through brutal IVF treatments - her girls who she loved and protected?

“The answer is that Lauren was severely mentally unwell on that night - there is no question about that.”

Toohey said Dickason was diagnosed with postpartum depression “that’s continued since the birth of her children” and “that never went away”.

In early 2021 she stopped taking the antidepressants - without consulting with her psychiatrist.

Dickason had been taking the medication “for years, including right through her pregnancies”.

“She stopped it because she thought they weren’t working for her any more,” Toohey told the jury.

“She lost weight, she got fitter and, not surprisingly on some level she was feeling better.”

Spiral into tragedy - a terrified and deeply unwell mother

But from July 2021 there was “a steep decline” in Dickason’s mental health.

There was major unrest in South Africa and Dickason was “terrified” of riots, looting near the family home and “daily violent crime”.

During a powercut, the mother-of-three was convinced her family would be murdered.

On top of that, Toohey said Dickason had “huge stress with covid lockdowns, three small children at home and trying to navigate the immigration process”.

“She began to think that she was failing as a mother, and all of that happened at a time when she had stopped taking that antidepressant medication,” she told the jury.

After she had thoughts of wanting to hurt the girls in August 2021 - which she told her husband about - she started taking the medication again.

But Toohey said the pills “take time to build up” and were “not like a panadol for a headache”.

“As it turned out six weeks was not enough time,” she said.

In the weeks leading up to the family moving to New Zealand Toohey said Dickason’s family and husband were “all desperately worried” about her.

The Dickason girls. PHOTO / SUPPLIED

“She stopped eating, she wasn’t sleeping much. She lost interest and pleasure in everything,” said Toohey.

“She told police that it was taking her ages to do simple tasks - these are all symptoms of depression.

“During that week in Timaru, everything looked bleak to Lauren. There was a power cut just like there had been in South Africa. She thought the children at Liane’s school looked sad and unkempt - and of course, they weren’t, they were just normal little children having fun.

“The house was small, the weather was cold, the rental market was terrible. When you are depressed everything looks terrible… it is so important to understand this.”

Toohey said it was crucial for the jury to “listen for the evidence about what Lauren said actually happened that week and what she experienced.”

In the two days before the alleged murders the family’s immigration adviser was seeking further details about Dickason’s mental health as well as additional information about the cleft lip Karla was born with that had been corrected by surgery when she was just months old.

Hours before she killed the children, Dickason and her husband took them to the park.

While there some teenage girls told her that a man had been there taking photos of them.

Toohey said those two things triggered Dickason’s fatal actions.

“At this stage, Lauren was so unwell she thought New Zealand was not safe and her application for a visa was hopeless,” she said.

“By the time these two things happened Lauren was so deep into her depression, removed from reality, that she decided to die and take her daughters with her.”

Defence implores the jury to listen hard to Dickason’s evidence

Toohey said the jury would also hear evidence about Dickason’s police interview which the defence says was inappropriate.

She said the woman was “literally disconnected from a drip and taken to the police station”.

“The on-call psychiatrist considered there was no acute need, despite the fact that she had just killed her three children and tried to commit suicide,” said Toohey.

The defence says police “got their confession” during the interview, knowing Dickason was likely under the influence of drugs, “in acute shock and in clear mental distress”.

Toohey spoke further to the jury about insanity and infanticide and what the defence experts will tell them over the next few days.

Dickason’s mother and another family member will also give evidence.

“If you find that Lauren’s mind was disturbed at the time this happened due to postpartum depression - then this is not murder it’s infanticide.

“And if she didn’t know what she was doing was morally wrong that night then she is not guilty of murder or infanticide; that is insanity.

Some details of children’s deaths not published

Yesterday the jury watched a video of Dickason’s interview with police the day after the alleged murders.

In the video Dickason confessed to killing her children, explaining how and what led up to the fatal incident.

The Herald has chosen not to publish some of the information Dickason disclosed to police about how the children died.

Both the Crown and defence sought to have certain elements suppressed - in a bid to protect Dickason’s husband and wider family.

“Leaving to one side the distressing nature of her conduct, some of the particulars she provides about what occurred are particularly harrowing,” said Justice Mander.

“Information has been provided to me from a psychologist who… advises that publication of a detailed account of what took place at the time the children were killed will be deeply disturbing to Mr Dickason and his family, who understandably have suffered significant psychological trauma as a result of these events.

“It is opined that should more harrowing details of the incident be released to the public by the media, this would cause irreparable harm to the mental health of Mr Dickason and the Dickason family.

“It is submitted that their ongoing recovery from this ‘catastrophic event’ should not be further complicated, if at all possible.”

Lauren Dickason during her police interview. Photo / Pool

Justice Mander heard from two other mental health specialists about the welfare of other members of Dickason’s family.

“They are reported to have suffered from increased psychological distress in recent times. Both… suffer from increased symptoms of depression, PTSD, and persistent complex bereavement disorder,” he said.

“Two mental health specialists have opined that release of ‘sensitive and prejudicial’ evidential information will aggravate their already fragile emotional and psychological wellbeing.”

After considering the request Justice Mander said he could not make an order suppressing the information.

“I accept publication of these details are likely to have a detrimental impact on Mr Dickason and members of the children’s family.

“I am acutely aware of the distress that will likely be caused… Unfortunately, the evidence relating to Mrs Dickason’s own account of what she did which is sought to be suppressed is not peripheral detail… Mrs Dickason’s actions on the night obviously form a central part of this case.

“Her apparent determination to take her children’s lives provides the context in which the varying psychological and psychiatric opinions will be required to be assessed.

“There is a need for the jury’s ultimate verdicts to be understood against the full background of what actually occurred, shocking as those details may be.

“As much as a court may wish to protect those innocent parties who have suffered so devastatingly from what has occurred, it cannot mitigate the harsh effect of evidence that is of such direct relevance to the charges, and the defences it is trying, without risk of distorting the public’s understanding of the case the jury must decide.

Justice Mander said while he could not prevent all of the information being published, he urged media to carefully “assess” what it reported from Dickason’s confession.

“My decision regarding the non-suppression of Mrs Dickason’s account should not be interpreted as the Court’s imprimatur that these details should be put in the wider public domain - only that as a matter of law I do not consider I can prohibit publication, nor exercise my discretion to effectively censor such evidence.

“However, I observe that the nature of this evidence… raises very real questions regarding what responsible news outlets may choose to publish and in what detail.”