\u201cHe\u2019s a whole lot better in the hospital than out?\u201d Gill said.<\/p>\n
\u201cYes,\u201d Barry-Walsh said.<\/p>\n
Gill described the man\u2019s history as a \u201crevolving door\u201d: becoming unwell, being admitted to hospital and recovering with treatment, before being released and becoming unwell again.<\/p>\n
Barry-Walsh said that was mostly true, but he pointed to a period between 2016 and 2022 when the man had \u201cdone better\u201d with minor relapses.<\/p>\n
Forensic psychiatrist Dr Justin Barry-Walsh said there was “too much doubt” the defendant didn’t know his actions were wrong. Photo \/ Mark Mitchell<\/p>\n
Between 2022 and March 2023, he deteriorated after being taken off a particular medication and was hospitalised four times, Barry-Walsh said.<\/p>\n
In April 2023 \u2013 about a month before he lit the fires \u2013 the man had fled a mental health facility and stopped taking his oral medication.<\/p>\n
He was last injected with \u201cdepo\u201d, which is slow-releasing, on April 7.<\/p>\n
\u201cDo you agree that … the depo medication would have run its course by the time he went AWOL?\u201d Gill asked.<\/p>\n
Barry-Walsh did not agree, saying there still would have been residual medication in the defendant\u2019s system.<\/p>\n
However, he agreed the \u201coptimum\u201d frequency of injections was every two or three weeks, which the defendant had not been getting.<\/p>\n
There was no question the defendant\u2019s illness worsened when he was not medicated, Barry-Walsh said.<\/p>\n
On Wednesday, Crown lawyer Stephanie Bishop told the jury arguing the defence of insanity was a \u201cthree-pronged test\u201d: the defendant must have a \u201cdisease of the mind\u201d, and prove that because of that they did not understand what they were doing, or that it was morally wrong.<\/p>\n
Barry-Walsh said on balance, there was \u201ctoo much doubt\u201d that the defendant did not know lighting the fires was wrong.<\/p>\n
But he cautioned that ultimately, it was a question for the jury \u2013 and noted other experts may have a different opinion.<\/p>\n
He spoke to factors supporting a defence of insanity, including that the defendant had a \u201cdisease of the mind\u201d \u2013 schizophrenia \u2013 and had symptoms like hallucinations and delusions when he lit the fire.<\/p>\n
The defendant had also fled an inpatient at a mental health facility in Auckland at the time, and he had described the offending occurring because of his mental illness \u2013 telling Barry-Walsh voices in his head told him to light the fires, despite him not wanting to.<\/p>\n
However, Barry-Walsh said there were factors that played against an insanity defence. Witnesses who saw him in the days after the fires, like social services staff, did not note schizophrenic symptoms.<\/p>\n
While there were hints, his behaviour did not compare to times he had been hospitalised, Barry-Walsh said.<\/p>\n
Doubt was also cast on the reliability of the defendant\u2019s account of what happened the night of the fires, which changed in different interviews with different doctors.<\/p>\n
Even if his account was accepted, there was evidence the defendant had some moral reasoning at the time, Barry-Walsh said.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis report he gave to me on one occasion that he didn\u2019t want to do it but he was overwhelmed, this account on another occasion, I think, of hearing the sirens and being worried about what\u2019s happened … and worrying that some people might be trapped,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
Proceedings were stalled for nearly two hours on Thursday morning, because a juror was unwell in hospital.<\/p>\n
When it became clear they would not be able to return to court, Justice Peter Churchman formally discharged her.<\/p>\n
The jury will continue the trial with 11 members.<\/p>\n
It is the second week of the trial, which is set down for five weeks.<\/p>\n