Jury must decide insanity defence
Crown tells of ‘reign of terror’ inflicted by alleged child murderer
Ajury has heard closing addresses in the trial of a Maketu¯ father accused of murdering his 2-year-old daughter. The jury must decide whether Aaron George Izett, 38, was insane when he killed Nevaeh Jahkaya Whatukura Ager between March 20 and 21 last year.
Or whether, as the Crown has alleged, Izett's “meth rage” led to him kill his daughter and assault three other people.
Izett is on trial in the High Court at Rotorua defending a murder charge after Nevaeh's body was found on the tidal flats at Little Waihi in Maketu¯ on March 21 last year.
In closing yesterday, Crown prosecutor Kieran Rafteryqctold the jury Izett's violent assault of his daughter and the multiple injuries inflicted on her were “brutal in the extreme”.
Raftery said Nevaeh would have suffered a “severe reign of terror” from Izett's sustained assault and the force used “spoke volumes” about his intentions.
Izett has accepted responsibility for causing the toddler’s fatal injuries but denies he had murderous intent.
Raftery said the Crown's evidence showed Izett “was not so out of it” he could not have intentionally committing the crimes he was charged with and the “only proper verdict” for the jury on the murder charge was guilty.
Raftery said the defence was largely relying on an insanity defence but two psychiatrists who had given independent evidence about Izett's state of mind at the time agreed Izett was not suffering from schizophrenia at the time and there was also no evidence of any history of a mental illness.
“It comes back to the drugs he was taking around the relevant period.”
He said drug-intoxicated intent was still intent and a claim Izett was forced by gang members to drink some water laced with methamphetamine was a “load of nonsense” as Izett never gave that explanation to the police nor to the doctors who interviewed him.
“The whole story is to try to explain away the enormity of the crime against his daughter, and trying to manipulate us.”
In the defence’s closing, lawyer Julie-anne Kincade QC told the jury Izett lacked the necessary intent to be found guilty of murder or should be found not guilty by reason of insanity.
She said there was evidence and plenty of other signs of Izett suffering a psychosis from the various witness reports of his erratic behaviour and being out of touch with reality.
Kincade said Izett's use of methamphetamine did not explain his behaviour and there were clearly other things going on in his mind that were not linked to drug taking.
“When you look at all the evidence there is absolutely no evidence that Mr Izett intended to kill his daughter, but whatever was going on in his mind it was not logical.”
The defence submitted Izett was “suffering from a disease of mind” at the time and not capable of understanding his actions were morally wrong.
Kincade said there was evidence about that from psychiatrist Dr Justin Barry-walsh.
“The fact that the doctors did not diagnose schizophrenia, does not mean it is not or was not there at the time.”
She said it was clear Izett was suffering from a psychosis which meant his thinking was “entirely irrational”.
Izett has also pleaded not guilty to three further charges – wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, assault, and injuring with intent to injure.
The charges relate to alleged assaults of Nevaeh's greatgrandfather, a neighbour and a police constable, all in March last year.
The tinues.
It comes back to the drugs he was taking around the relevant period. Kieran Raftery QC
trial con