Youth Court Decisions How to Use Full list of key titles CYPFA section Date

Police v LM 7 August 2007 Youth Court Gisborne CRI 2007-263-41 Judge JP Geoghegan

Name: Police v LM
Unreported
File number: CRI 2007-263-41
Court: Youth Court
Location: Gisborne
Date: 7 August 2007
Judge: Judge JP Geoghegan
Charge: Grievous Bodily Harm
CYPFA: s333, s238(1)(d)
Key title: Insanity, Remand
Case Summary:
The defendant, LM faced one charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, a purely indictable charge.
It was uncontested and accepted that at the time of the offence the YP was insane. The provisions of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 clearly contemplate the YC having jurisdiction. Once the defence of insanity is raised pursuant to s20 of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003, that the Judge must record a finding of ‘not guilty’ on account of insanity.
As a prerequisite to a recording of a finding of not guilty, when the charge is purely indictable, YC jurisdiction was offered and accepted.
1. Whether the Judge was required to conduct a hearing to establish on the balance of probabilities whether or not the defendant caused the act or omission that formed the basis of the charge.
2. Whether there is jurisdiction to remand LM under s238(1)(d) of the CYPFA.

Decision: Finding LM not guilty on account of insanity.
1. Section 9 of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 requires a hearing to take place where the issue is the fitness of the defendant to stand trial. Section 9 does not refer to a finding of insanity and accordingly the Act does not require the Court to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the evidence is sufficient to establish that LM was responsible for the acts.
There was no dispute that LM was responsible for the assault.

2. As LM was the subject of a compulsory treatment order, requiring him to be an in patient, s23 of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 required that where a person is acquitted on account of insanity, the Court must order that enquiries be made to determine the most suitable method of dealing with him under ss23,24. The jurisdiction issue under s238(1)(d) was solved by recording the remand of LM to hospital pursuant to s23(20(b) of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003.