Lauren Dickason murdered her three little girls out of anger and her “need for control” over her family - she knew what she was doing and the consequences and she did not contemplate stopping, a Christchurch jury has been told.
And while she was “significantly unwell” with depression, her condition was not bad enough for her to have a defence of insanity or infanticide. That is the crux of the Crown case against the accused.
Prosecutor Andrew McRae was giving his closing address at Dickason’s trial at the High Court this morning.
The defence gave its closing this afternoon.
“Undoubtedly, the depression affected her decision-making at that moment - but not to such a degree that she was unable to understand her actions were morally wrong,” McRae told the court. “She ought to still be held fully responsible for what she’s done.”
The 42-year-old admits killing daughters Liané, 6, and 2-year-old twins Maya and Karla by smothering them to death at their Timaru home in September 2021. But she denies it was murder and has pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity or infanticide.
The trial began on July 17 and over the past four weeks a jury of eight women and four men have heard extensive evidence about Dickason’s life before and after she and her family emigrated to New Zealand from South Africa a month before the children died.
Dickason’s actions on the day of the alleged murders were canvassed at length, along with her lifelong battle with a major depressive disorder, her gruelling fertility journey including at least 17 rounds of IVF and the loss of a baby early in a pregnancy, and her struggles with motherhood.
The court was shown videos of Dickason and her husband Graham being interviewed by police after the girls were killed. Graham Dickason then gave evidence via audio-visual link from his home in Pretoria after he chose not to return to New Zealand to attend the trial.
In his final address today, McRae said the jury had heard a lot of evidence over the last month and may think their task ahead was impossible.
“While you may not think so at this point in the trial, the issue in this case is going to be quite simple for you,” he said.
“There’s no doubt that Ms Dickason killed her three children. There’s no doubt in terms of the manner in which she did that.
“The issue is going to be whether her actions at the time she killed her children ... are partially excused by the fact that the balance of her mind was disturbed by the effects of childbirth or a disorder consequent upon childbirth… or whether she was insane.
“She was significantly unwell with depression… but she wasn’t so unwell she has a medical defence available to her.
“On the contrary… her actions are explained by two primary drivers - her anger at her children’s behaviour and her need for control - in that isolated moment, there was a loss of control in the context of the situation she was in.
“Once she started doing what she was doing to the girls there was no turning back. She did not contemplate stopping. The Crown says she was not insane… she was not so unwell she did not know her actions were morally wrong.”
McRae said while Dickason’s “history of major current depression” is not in dispute - the timing of it is “essential”.
The Crown says Dickason’s depression began when she was 15 and recurred throughout her life including after she gave birth to Liane and then twins. However, in early 2021 she had a period of “sustained remission”.
In the lead-up to emigrating to New Zealand she faced new and specific issues around moving her family overseas, the Covid-19 pandemic and lockdowns and an increase in violent crime in South Africa.
“Those new stressors created the depression… she had recovered from the postnatal depression. Infanticide is not available to her,” McRae said.
It was also crucial for the jury to look at Dickason’s credibility. He said what she told police and the first psychiatric experts to assess her was the truth - and later accounts were effectively her attempting to “rationalise” her actions.
McRae said Dickason’s accounts to clinicians and five experts - two for the Crown and three for the defence - were “inconsistent”.
“It shifts, it changes, it evolves. Her accounts did not indicate that this was done out of love or that she did this because it was in their best interest - her action was very much done in a moment of anger. Her account varies so much because of the treatment provided to her and her very natural desire to rationalise this very terrible act.”
Earlier accounts to police and Crown experts “better crystallises… what actually happened”, he told the jury.
Any suggestion of an “altruistic motive” - killing her children out of love and a suggestion heavily relied on by the defence - was an idea introduced to her during her later psychiatric treatment, he said.
“The treatment she received clouded her responses. When you look at the information [she gave in the initial interviews] critically… there was no true altruistic motive that was given to them.”
McRae said the jury should be “sceptical” of Dickason’s claims she killed the girls because she did not want to “leave them behind” when she committed suicide.
“It was an act done out of anger as a consequence of the children’s behaviour at the time."
It was crucial the jury put their emotions aside when assessing the evidence - and to remember this was “not a trial by expert”, he said.
“This has been a very, very difficult trial you’ve sat through in four weeks… with complicated, lengthy evidence - and in many aspects what has been traversed has been distressing ... This trial is not a search for excuses or reasons or even sense - this trial is a search for the truth.”
McRae was critical of the defence experts, saying they did not undertake “robust testing” of Dickason’s account and “ignored crucial information”. Their assessments “lacked rigour” and that they “did not test her account sufficiently” and “accepted it unchallenged”.
Information the Crown says is “so important in this trial” was simply disregarded, and one expert did not even speak to Dickason’s husband directly - relying instead on accounts of others’ engagement with him.
McRae acknowledged the defence would likely pick holes in the Crown’s experts and suggest they did not have a good rapport with the accused which explained her lack of full disclosure to them. However, he said their accounts were the most reliable, robust and credible.
In particular, McRae said the jury needed to take “extreme caution” with the evidence of forensic and reproductive psychiatrist Dr Susan Hatters-Friedman. Touted as a world-renowned expert on infanticide - she was the first expert the defence called.
McRae said Hatters-Friedman spoke to Dickason some 18 or 19 months after the alleged murders and the account the accused gave “bore no resemblance” to the interview she gave to police or the experts who saw her first.
A “prime example” of why the jury should disregard the evidence was Hatters-Friedman had “a starting point of altruism, rejecting anything that did not fit with that”. Further, she “overdramatised” and “overvalued” some information, he suggested.
Mother 'motivated by anger'
Overall, the defence experts did not consider information that was contrary to their theory on Dickason, disregarding evidence that “did not fit”.
“They didn’t look hard enough... it is clear that anger is present,” said McRae.
“The Crown accept that Mrs Dickason was unwell… what happened here was a perfect storm, she was subject to a new stressor that caused her to snap.
“Her anger is proven with her relationship with her children seen over the year in her text messages… in her police interview and in her own interviews with the experts.
“The Crown say the [defence experts] were blinded by the defendant’s explanation of altruism.”
McRae said the jury would be satisfied “beyond a reasonable doubt” that Dickason had committed murder.
“You will be sure."
He said they would not find enough evidence for the partial defence of infanticide, or the full defence of insanity.
McRae said there were many elements the jury had to consider in making its final decision.
He said jurors “could be sure” that her depression was “in line with her personality deficits” and any childbirth or postpartum issues were “a minimal contributor”.
He said the alleged murders came at a time when any postpartum depression was “long gone” and additional stressors had taken over, including anger.
Regarding the insanity defence, McRae said it did not exist.
“The Crown say the defendant knew… she was going to kill them, she knew the nature of the act, she knew the consequence. She knew she was killing the girls and she proceeded regardless.
“The Crown accept that Mrs Dickason was unwell… but what happened here was a perfect storm, she was subject to a new stressor that caused her to snap.
“Her anger is proven by her relationship with her children seen over the year in her text messages… in her police interview and in her own interviews with the experts. Aspects of anger did bubble over in many aspects of her life...”
Further, McRae said Dickason was “resentful” of the impact the children had on her relationship with her husband - that she got less uninterrupted time with him - and she was “jealous” that they often seemed to prefer their father.
He urged the jury to place the most weight on the police interview with the accused.
“It’s the very first account... free of any influence... the Crown say it’s the one you should take the most from,” he said.
“There can be no suggestion that the content is wrong or misleading. That content describes anger towards the girls… it is the first account of why she did what she did.
“There is a very clear theme of anger... it is anger that explains the defendant’s actions here - this was a long time brewing...yes she was mentally unwell, but she was not so mentally unwell she could not determine the moral wrongfulness of her actions.
“She must have known what she was doing was morally wrong if she was worried about the possibility of discovery...she made efforts to clean up the scene... she’s understanding what she’s doing.
“You will be drawn to the inevitable conclusion that she knew what she was doing was morally wrong and the defence of insanity is not available to her. As difficult as that is...you will find her guilty of murder...it is clear that anger is the significant motivator in this case.”
The defence will present its closing address after 2pm today and are expected to take several hours outlining its final points to the jury.
On Monday, Justice Cameron Mander will sum up the trial and then the jury will be sent to deliberate. The judge will also direct jurors on how to reach a verdict - what to consider, what to disregard and how to work through the process.
