IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA
TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE	
CRI-2018-063-2383
[2019] NZHC 1837	

THE QUEEN	

v	

MARK ANDREW RAWSON	

Hearing:	31 July 2019	
Appearances:	A Gordon for the Crown
L Te Kani for the Defendant	
Judgment:	31 July 2019	

ORAL JUDGMENT OF POWELL J
[Disposition Hearing]

R v RAWSON [2019] NZHC 1837 [31 July 2019]

[1]	Mark Rawson comes before the Court today to determine his final disposition having been found not guilty by reason of insanity on one charge of attempted murder and two charges of assaulting with a blunt instrument; all charges having taken place at an incident on 2 July 2018.1

[2]	The purpose of today’s disposition hearing is to  determine whether or not  Mr Rawson should become a special patient pursuant to s 24(2)(a) of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003, or whether there are other orders pursuant to ss 24 and 25 of the Act that are more appropriate.2

[3]	To this end a report has been obtained from Dr Peter Dean, a consultant psychiatrist with Midland  Regional  Forensic  Psychiatric  Service.  In  his  report Dr Dean set out the record of his examination of Mr Rawson on 5 July 2019, before confirming a diagnosis of schizophrenia and noting in particular:

Mr Rawson has an abnormal state of mind characterised by intermittent symptoms of delusions, disorders of mood, perception and cognition. As a consequence of his abnormal state of mind he has posed a serious risk to the safety of others, particularly evident by his criminal charges. He is therefore mentally disordered as defined by section 2 of Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992.

[4]	With regard to the appropriate disposition Dr Dean set out:

As a result of his mental disorder, Mr Rawson requires ongoing compulsory care. I note the events leading to his arrest leading to charges of attempted murder. He used weapons to assault both his father and stepmother in the context of acute psychotic symptoms. In this context he posed a serious risk to the safety of the public. I note Mr Rawson has not previously taken psychiatric medication in the community and did not take psychiatric medication when discharged from inpatient care to the prison. His condition quickly relapsed. He does appear to have improved significantly and gained some insight into his condition and the need for treatment. However, he has not been tested outside of an inpatient setting to determine whether his adherence to medication can be sustained. He struggles to identify early warning signs of relapse and therefore there is some doubt as to whether he would be able to seek help should his condition deteriorate. He has not been tested in a community setting to ensure his motivation to remain abstinent from cannabis remains. It is not yet clear how he will respond to the pressures of community living. It is likely he will require a gradual transition into community living in order to ensure the safety of the public.

1	R v Rawson [2019] NZHC 1381.
2	See M (CA8191 2011) v R [2012] NZCA 142.

[5]	Dr Dean therefore recommended:

… Mr Rawson is best disposed of subject to s 24(2)(a) of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 as a special patient.

The court may also consider disposing of Mr Rawson subject to s 25(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003. He is currently compliant with medication, accepts the need for treatment and is engaging in his mental health care. However, for the reasons described above, I would favour special patient status considering the potential risks and safety of the public.

[6]	Since Dr Dean’s report, another psychiatrist, Dr Shailesh Kumar, has provided a further report to the Court. Dr Kumar’s report does not directly concern disposition but rather updates the Court with regard to the ongoing treatment of Mr Rawson which indeed Dr Kumar confirms is going well, but as noted, does not contain any recommendation with regard to disposition.

[7]	Both counsel, Ms Gordon on behalf of the Crown, and Mr Te Kani on behalf of Mr Rawson, concur with Dr Dean’s recommendations. Both have noted Dr Deans concerns if Mr Rawson is prematurely released into the community and the consequences that would ensue if Mr Rawson does not maintain his medication. Both are therefore concerned at any suggestion that Mr Rawson may be released prematurely and as a result consider that the extra oversight implicit in an order under s 24(2)(a) is appropriate in the circumstances.

[8]	Having considered all the circumstances in this case including the nature of the incident on 2 July 2018, the various  psychiatric  reports  (including  in  particular, Dr Dean’s disposition report), as well as the judgment of Toogood J, I am satisfied that in order to protect the interests of the public and in particular members of Mr Rawson’s family as well as Mr Rawson himself, an order pursuant to s 24(2)(a) of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act is appropriate.

[9]	In particular I consider that the extra protection afforded by an order under    s 24(2)(a) is necessary given the concerns noted by Dr Dean that while Mr Rawson’s condition is currently much improved and should continue to improve, those improvements can deteriorate quickly if his medication is not taken and there is doubt

about whether his adherence to medication can be maintained out of hospital, and doubt whether he can remain abstinent from cannabis.

[10]	Given the clear risks of violence if medication is not maintained such an order under s 24(2)(a) is clearly necessary. I therefore order Mr Rawson be detained in hospital as a special patient under the Medical Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992.

Powell J