Man found not guilty of murder by way of insanity twice after two separate killings
Photo:
RNZ
A man who was ruled insane after committing a high-profile killing more than two decades ago has gone on to kill another person.
The case, which is shrouded in secrecy, occurred "against a backdrop of apparent significant failures in the mental health system", a High Court judge says.
RNZ can exclusively reveal the man - who was made a special patient under the Mental Health Act after his first killing - was recently found not guilty of murder by reason of insanity for a second time after killing someone he believed was possessed.
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 an external review of the care the patient received leading up to their offending was underway. 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.
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 judgement, 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 whanau 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 whanau 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".
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.
Dr 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]."
Dr 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.
Dr 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."
The victim's family requested permanent name suppression for the victim. Both psychiatrists supported name suppression for the man.
Dr 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 whanau, 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."
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.
Dr 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, Dr 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.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero,
a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
10 hours ago
- RNZ News
Kiwi who killed a Melbourne motorcyclist in a hit-and-run to be deported from Australia
By Tara Shaskey, Open Justice reporter of Melbourne man Keith Stevens was fatally struck and dragged on his motorbike by a Kiwi teenager who failed to stop the car he was driving. Photo: Open Justice / NZME The "inhumane" and "cruel" actions of a young Kiwi who killed a motorcyclist in a fiery hit-and-run have raised concerns for Australian officials and resulted in him being exiled from the country. The New Zealand-born man was 17 when he failed to give way at a Melbourne intersection in a stolen BMW he was driving and collided with a motorcycle. The bike and its rider, Keith Stevens, became trapped under the vehicle but the then-teenager continued to drive, dragging them for 85 metres. The friction caused the motorcycle to burst into flames, engulfing Stevens and causing burns to 80 percent of his body. When the driver, who had lived in Australia since he was 1, finally stopped, he reversed off the motorcycle and drove off at speed, leaving the 33-year-old father for dead. Australian media reported the teen only paused to dislodge Stevens when his three teenage passengers begged him to do so. Stevens died in hospital the next day after his life support was turned off. After the November 2017 fatal crash in Mitcham, Melbourne, the car driver, who has not been named because of Australian laws around reporting youth offender matters, was sentenced in the County Court of Victoria to six years' imprisonment, with a minimum non-parole period of four years. In sentencing him, Judge Irene Lawson was brought to tears and needed a moment to compose herself when describing the void left by Stevens' death, according to Australian media. She described the actions of the teenager as inhumane and cowardly. As a result of his offending, his visa was cancelled in 2020 under section 501 of Australia's Migration Act. His plea to have that decision revoked was declined and he then applied to the Administrative Review Tribunal of Australia for a review. The review hearing for the now 25-year-old, who is currently detained in immigration detention, was held last month. According to the decision, he moved to Australia as a 1-year-old with his family in 2001. It stated he had a "difficult upbringing" that had, in part, influenced his offending. He began smoking marijuana at 12, drinking alcohol around 14 and progressed to methamphetamine use at 16. The decision reported he had displayed "anti-social behaviours" that had manifested into violence since he was young. His conviction history showed frequent and repeated offending and that he was on youth parole for offences including burglary when he fatally hit Stevens. Immediately after that collision, the teen ditched the stolen BMW and he and his associates ran up an embankment and jumped over a fence into a property. They tried to kick down a door at the house but a female resident threw her weight against it so they couldn't get in. They gave up but moved on to another home in the street, breaking in and stealing a car, a cellphone and a wallet. That car was later found abandoned and destroyed by fire. At his sentencing, the court heard the teen was egocentric, addicted to meth and had limited capacity for remorse at the time. Australian media reported that he had called a friend in juvenile detention after the crash and said: "Even after the accident, bro, I didn't feel anything. Like, I didn't feel no pain, no emotions about it." His friend then asked him if he cared about the life he had taken. "Yeah, bro, I f***in' murdered a f***in' innocent 33-year-old man," he responded. At the recent appeal, he told the tribunal he had not been remorseful for killing Stevens at the time but now accepted full responsibility and made no attempt to excuse his behaviour or to attribute blame to anyone else. The tribunal accepted that he had matured and was truly remorseful. The man attributed several factors to his youth offending, including parental neglect, poor mental health, anti-social peers and drug use, including meth, cannabis and ecstasy. But his mental health and emotional and psychological issues have not been professionally addressed and he remains a risk of reoffending. In his plea to remain in Australia, the man said he had no family support in New Zealand and was unfamiliar with the country. His mother had "grave fears" that if deported, and without his Australian support network, he would fall into gang life and drugs and be at risk of serious physical, emotional and mental harm. The tribunal accepted that, because of being incarcerated since he was a teen, he has no experience as an adult in the community and would face difficulties in adjusting to life in New Zealand without family support. But the decision stated he was not unfamiliar with New Zealand, as movement records showed he had travelled to New Zealand 15 times during 2001 and 2015, and had a relative in Wellington. While the tribunal accepted the man has strong and enduring ties to Australia, they were diminished by his extensive criminal record and his "very limited" positive contribution to the community. In declining to revoke the cancellation of the man's visa, the tribunal stated the nature of the offending had raised serious character concerns about the man. "The nature of the applicant's offending and the harm that would result if it were repeated are so serious that the countervailing considerations are insufficient to outweigh considerations of the protection of the Australian community and the expectations of the Australian community so as to justify revoking the cancellation of the applicant's visa." * This story originally appeared in the New Zealand Herald . (fyi italics don't work within link brackets)
RNZ News
16 hours ago
- RNZ News
Grieving mother calls for Wellington's historic crane's removal after son's death
By Catherine Hutton, Open Justice reporter of Jarreth Colquhoun (inset) died after jumping from the floating crane SS Hikitia on the Wellington waterfront in January 2024. Photo: Mark Mitchell / NZME Grieving mum Sue Colquhoun fears it's only a matter of time until someone else jumps off the historic crane, the SS Hikitia, moored on Wellington's waterfront. Last January, her son Jarreth climbed to the top, waved to a crowd below and jumped feet first into the harbour - the equivalent of falling 12 storeys. It's estimated he was travelling at 98km/h when he hit the water. A coroner has ruled this week that the height of the crane and the speed with which he fell , combined with the effects of acute methamphetamine use and cold water immersion, meant Colquhoun's fall was fatal. She's now made some recommendations in the hope of preventing similar tragedies. But his mum says you can't, and won't, stop young men from doing foolish things, particularly those like Jarreth who viewed the Hikitia as a challenge. Her son had exhibited risky behaviour for years. He was either extremely withdrawn or super hyped up. Twice she'd tried to get a mental health assessment, without success. But she says to people like her son, the Hikitia was a visible challenge and a temptation, that others are going to try. That's why she wants the crane completely removed from the waterfront. She's vowed to keep fighting, saying it's irrelevant if the next fatality is one year or 10 years away: "I was still the one before them who could have made a difference," she said. The 33-year-old's death coincided with the Manu World Champs at the nearby Taranaki St Dive Platform. Sue's in no doubt that her son was spurred on by the competition and a desire to prove he could jump further. She can visualise him on the crane, drawn to the water and waving to the crowds below. But she's disappointed by the coroner's report and feels more could be done between the Maritime Heritage Trust, as the crane's owners, and the Wellington City Council (WCC), which owns the wharves. She says moving the crane further over the boat to deter others from jumping and the extra security measures proposed in the coroner's report aren't enough. Instead, she wants the crane moved away from the wharf, the waterfront, and anywhere there's foot traffic. "They can sink it, for all I care," she said. The only tiny piece of satisfaction she took from the coroner's finding was the council's commitment to include the Hikitia in its safety plan for the next event. But even that wouldn't be necessary if the Hikitia were moved from its current spot, she said. Invited for a tour aboard the Hikitia following Jarreth's death, she said it did little to sway her views. While aboard, she saw the effort volunteers put in to restoring the vessel but to her, she felt there appeared to be little effort being put in to making it safer. The Hikitia floating crane in Wellington. Photo: RNZ / Michael Cropp Any discussions she'd had with the crane's trustees had come from the angle of "we're preserving a piece of history", she said. "That's the least thing on my mind, you've got that history in your books. My history now is death notices and a headstone, that's my history with that boat now, and I don't want to see it." Instead, she wants discussion about why more isn't being done to move the vessel from its current location. She'd also like to hear from other families who've been involved in previous jumping incidents from the crane, including from the family of Jamie Gibbon who died in 2015 and is mentioned in the recent coroner's report. Sue wants people to know that Jarreth was a kind, loyal and loving person to everyone. The last six months of his life, during which he was gripped by methamphetamine addiction, did not accurately reflect the good man and kind father that he was, she said. The trust has expressed its condolences to Jarreth's family for their terrible loss and says his death had a significant impact on their volunteers. In a statement, its chairman Peter McKnight says there are ongoing discussions between the trust and WCC to ensure the Hikitia can remain safely at her existing berth, particularly during waterfront events. The decision to post security guards on the Hikitia during this year's Homegrown music festival was an example of the trust's engagement with the council around event planning and management. While it's always looking to improve safety, it doubted moving the vessel to another berth would change matters. It refers to the coroner's report, which noted that tower cranes are often the target of illegal climbing activities. Wellington's harbourmaster Grant Nalder estimates the Hikitia has been berthed in its present spot since the 1990s. He says any decisions about moving the Hikitia are between the trust and the WCC, but warns it's not as simple as saying, "we'll move it somewhere else". "There is no mythical somewhere else." Also, he points out the vessel is no longer self-propelled, something the volunteers are working to fix, so it can once again operate under its own steam. The trust says given the vessel's significant historical value to global maritime history and engineering, improving public education and outreach about the Hikitia also plays an important part in how the public engages with the vessel. With its centenary celebrations next year, the trust hopes to continue to inspire New Zealand's future sailors, engineers, historians, crane operators, and artists through updated and improved outreach programmes on the Hikitia at Taranaki Wharf. * This story originally appeared in the New Zealand Herald .
Otago Daily Times
a day ago
- Otago Daily Times
Court date set 11 months after application lodged
Despite the government's recent announcement that new initiatives to reduce court delays are showing progress, for some in Oamaru, getting their day in court is still hampered by a "flawed" system and "very stressful" delays. Last week, Minister for Courts Nicole McKee said initiatives aimed at tackling delays across New Zealand courts were delivering promising results. The District Court Timelines Programme (DCTP) was established in 2023, and is jointly led by the Ministry of Justice and the judiciary, it includes a range of initiatives to improve timeliness and address backlogs in the criminal jurisdiction. She said nationally, criminal court backlogs were down 11%. "Delays in the justice system affect everyone, from victims and applicants to their families. "The delays can erode confidence in the system, that's why I'm pleased to say we've turned a corner," Mrs McKee said. The High Court is also showing gains, particularly in civil probate cases, she said. In 2023, only 9% of these were resolved within 15 days, that figure rose to 33% in 2024 and now sits at 84%, Mrs McKee said. Mrs McKee said the focus had mainly been on District Courts with the largest backlog across all jurisdictions, these are the metropolitan courts, particularly in Auckland. As these initiatives were only launched in South Island District Court locations in February 2025, it is too soon to measure their impact, she said. A North Otago resident, who contacted the Oamaru Mail, said they had a "very stressful" wait after lodging their application in the Oamaru District Court (ODC) last year. The resident had applied to the Family Court for a Protection Order and Occupation Order in September 2024. In late April, this year, a hearing date was set — for August 7, almost one year after application. The resident said they believed the system was "flawed" and the delay had meant their "fundamental right" had been ignored. "I am aware that others in Oamaru have given up and had to move their cases elsewhere. "This option was not available to me as I never had a court date allocated, until almost a year had expired, well outside the six weeks under the legislation" they said. They say they have had to make two further "on notice" applications in this time to advance their situation. In New Zealand, if a Protection Order application is made "on notice", meaning the respondent is aware of the application and has a chance to respond, the hearing date must be set as soon as practicable, but no later than six weeks from the date the application was filed. Mrs McKee said while she was unable to comment or intervene in individual cases, timeline standards for the Family Court, were being developed and would be finalised soon to support court timeliness and performance. In June 2024, the Chief District Court Judge issued the Timely Access to Justice Protocol, setting out a standard that 90% of criminal cases will be disposed of within specified thresholds, she said. "A number of courts in rural areas are already meeting or exceeding the 90% timelines standard [Waihi, Opotiki, Waipukurau, Ruatoria, Marton and Kaikoura] for criminal case disposal, while others are heading in the right direction, including Oamaru at 89%," she said. She said the improvements would ease pressure on court resources, allowing them to be allocated to cases that would improve timelines in the long term. "These are the kinds of improvements that matter to people, faster decisions mean less uncertainty and greater confidence in our justice system," Mrs McKee said.
