Another two defence experts and two Crown experts will present their evaluation of Dickason's state at the time of the killings. Video / NZ Herald
WARNING: This story contains graphic and sensitive content.
The trial for killer mum Lauren Dickason will enter its 14th day today, with the jury expected to hear hours more evidence from psychiatric experts who assessed the alleged murderer.
The 42-year-old South African woman admits to smothering Liane, 6, and 2-year-old twins Maya and Karla to death at their Timaru home in September 2021.
But she has pleaded not guilty to three charges of murder and has mounted a defence of insanity or infanticide.
So far, extensive evidence has been presented about Dickason’s life - her upbringing, marriage, the gruelling fertility treatment she underwent to have children and her long battle with anxiety and depression.
Lauren Anne Dickason appears in court on the first day of her two-week trial for the murder of her three children.
The jury watched footage of police interviews with Dickason and her husband Graham - who found his children dead in bed and his wife in need of medical attention when he returned from a work function.
It also heard hours of evidence from those first at the scene, those who spent time with the Dickason family in the week leading up to the alleged murders and family members of the accused.
Hours of messages sent and received by Dickason where she refers to “murdering” her “crazy” kids and vents about her parenting and marriage struggles were read in court.
The jury will hear from five psychiatric experts in total - two for the Crown and three for the defence.
Each has been tasked with giving formal opinions on whether Dickason was insane at the time of the alleged murders and if she can rely on a defence of infanticide.
This week, the jury has heard from Crown expert Dr Erik Monasterio, who has more than 27 years of experience as a forensic psychiatrist and has worked on more than 200 homicide cases.
He said there was no doubt Dickason had a mental illness, but it did not extend far enough for her to have a defence of insanity or infanticide.
Further, he found there was no evidence of an altruistic motive and it was more likely that Dickason killed out of “anger and frustration”.
“She systematically strangled the children and seemingly methodically checked for vital signs before resorting to smothering them until they were dead,” he said.
“The alleged offences are unlikely to have been impulsive.
“In my opinion, as the defendant maintained awareness and behaved systematically, there is no evidence that she was in an automatic state or that she did not understand the nature and quality of her actions at the material time.”
The Dickason girls. Photo / Facebook
Monasterio said as Dickason had battled depression since she was 15, she could not claim her “disease of the mind” was connected to childbirth, thus removing infanticide as a defence.
“She had a history of these symptoms before pregnancy … the depressive disorder … occurred well before the defendant’s pregnancy … the depression was already there before she gave birth, so it cannot be called postpartum,” he said.
“It is likely that the effects of pregnancy and adaptation to the demands of motherhood and the care of three young children contributed too - but did not fully account for the defendant’s major depressive disorder at the time of the children’s birth.”
“There is no evidence the defendant has an infanticide defence available.”
Last week, internationally renowned forensic and reproductive psychiatrist Dr Susan Hatters-Friedman gave evidence supporting the defence.
After assessing Dickason and her case, she concluded there was a clear example of an altruistic motive - where a parent kills “out of love” rather than out of anger or hate.
She believed Dickason was “severely depressed and had developed psychotic thinking”.
“It is my opinion that at the time of her alleged offending, Lauren Dickason was labouring under a disease of the mind to such an extent that it rendered her incapable of knowing that the act was morally wrong,” she opined.
“She conceptualised that [killing the children] was the right thing to do.”
Both experts have been grilled - for hours - under cross-examination about their process and conclusions.
The trial continues and is expected to run for at least another week.
The defence of insanity
Under New Zealand law, every person before the court is presumed to be sane at the time of doing the act they are charged with until the contrary is proved.
The onus is on the defence to prove the defendant was insane at the time.
Under the Crimes Act, a person cannot be convicted of an offence committed when they were “labouring under natural imbecility or disease of the mind” to such an extent they are rendered incapable of understanding the nature and quality of their actions or knowing their actions were morally wrong.
A person can be found insane either in the time before their offence or at the specific time of the offence.
Before 2003, a defendant could only be found not guilty by reason of insanity at the conclusion of a trial.
Lauren Dickason during her police interview. Photo / Pool
But changes to the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 mean if both the defendant’s lawyer and Crown solicitors agree, and if the judge is satisfied by expert evidence the person was legally insane, they can be found not guilty by reason of insanity without any need for a trial.
If an insanity defence is accepted by the court, the defendant will be been detained as a special patient and ordered to remain at a forensic mental health facility until the Minister of Health or the National Director of Mental Health deems they are no longer a risk to themselves or others.
The special patient order is indefinite - there is no minimum or maximum time for a person to be detained.
In cases where the Crown and defence experts disagree on insanity, the matter goes to trial. The onus is on the defence to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, the accused was insane and thus not criminally culpable.
The defence of infanticide
Under New Zealand law, infanticide operates both as a stand-alone offence and as a partial defence to murder or manslaughter.
Infanticide is defined in the Crimes Act 1961 as a woman causing the death of any child of hers under the age of 10 where at the time of the offence “the balance of her mind was disturbed”.
That disturbance can be caused by:
The woman “not having fully recovered from the effect of giving birth to that or any other child”;
By reason of the effect of lactation;
Or by reason of any disorder consequent upon childbirth or lactation, to such an extent that she should not be held fully responsible.
If the jury finds Dickason was suffering from any of the above at the time her daughters were killed, it could find her guilty of infanticide - and not of murder.
Someone found guilty of infanticide is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years.
The defence says Dickason was a severely mentally disturbed woman in the depths of postpartum depression and did not know the act of killing the children was morally wrong at the time of their deaths.
Further, it says she was “in such a dark place” she had decided to kill herself and felt “it was the right thing to do” to “take the girls with her”.
