The forensic psychiatrist who deemed Christie Marceau's killer fit to stand trial now says Akshay Chand is a "pathological liar" and a "manipulative" and "cunning" psychopath.
He says he never thought anyone would "seriously consider" bailing the disturbed youth after his first attack on Christie in 2011.
Dr Ian Goodwin is continuing to give evidence at the inquest into Christie's death before Coroner Katharine Greig in the Auckland District Court.
Yesterday he explained how he interviewed Chand while he was on remand at Mt Eden Prison on September 16, 2011.
The purpose of the interview was so Goodwin could prepare a court-ordered report about whether Chand was fit to stand trial.
Goodwin said today he thought the report had been requested by Chand's lawyer.
However, it was ordered by Judge Barbara Morris who presided over Chand's first two court appearances.
It has been suggested to Goodwin that Judge David McNaughton may have relied on his report when he decided to grant Chand bail.
During the inquest today Goodwin has become "exasperated" at the suggestion, repeatedly saying his report should not have been used for that.
Chand was initially denied bail after appearing in court on charges of kidnapping and assaulting Christie, 18.
However Judge McNaughton released him on October 5, 2011.
Thirty three days later Chand stabbed Christie to death in her North Shore home.
Under cross-examination by lawyer Hanne Janes, who is assisting the Coroner, Goodwin conceded that Chand deceived him in the interview.
The court heard that after Chand killed Christie he admitted to police that he had effectively started planning her murder in Mt Eden and told experts what he thought they wanted to hear to get out on bail.
"I didn't know he was a pathological liar when I interviewed him," Goodwin said this morning.
He also maintains that Chand is a "psychopath".
"One of the traits is the capacity to glibly lie," he said.
"In other words, they can [lie] in a convincing manner."
Psychopaths can also be "very charming to get what they want" and can be "callous and manipulative", said Janes.
"They will always try and control a situation," she said.
She said they also conveyed "grandiosity exaggerated" and had high opinions of themselves, "cunning and manipulative" and their emotional responses were "superficial".
A lack of empathy was also a key indicator, and Goodwin said that was relevant to Chand.
But it was hard to pinpoint the teen as a psychopath at the time, because he had no history of offending.
He said usually when he made a diagnosis of psychopathy the offender had a "vast" criminal history and a lot of information is available about them, including police summary of facts, psych reports from previous court cases and judges' sentencing notes.
"Normally there is a huge amount of information we can actually check against what the person says to us," he explained.
As Chand had not previously offended, Goodwin said it was difficult - and dangerous - to make the diagnosis.
"While you can have suspicions about a person's behaviours, you still have to be extremely cautious in saying a person has psychotic traits," he said.
He said Chand was narcissistic, entitled and had indicated anger towards Christie that "transmuted into a desire for revenge".
"Which could be part of a psychotic personality structure, or narcissism."
Goodwin said - repeatedly - his report should not have been used for a bail decision.
It was not a risk assessment report, it was a report on Chand and whether he was fit to stand trial.
"If you ask me for a fitness report, that's what you get," he said.
"If you ask me for a risk assessment around bail, that's what you will get - you don't get me guessing and speculating about what might be needed."
Chand told Goodwin he was applying for bail and the doctor was aware of the basic facts of the case - but did not think to write about his risk to Christie or other matters in the fitness report as that was not his job.
"My opinion was that he didn't have a hope of bail, based on the offending and the opposition [by police and Christie]," he said.
"I really didn't think anyone would seriously consider bail."
Janes asked Goodwin if, in hindsight, he should have included more information - including the risk of harm to Christie.
"The underlying false premise here is that mental health services should be managing risk," he said.
"I thought [the risk to Christie] was extremely well covered in the police opposition to bail.
"You've got to remember at the time of the interview this was his first event and he had no [criminal] history.
"I didn't know that he was manipulating myself and lying at that time.
Janes asked if Goodwin accepted his report would have held more weight with a judge than letters from forensic nurses who had assessed him previously.
And given that, if he should or could have been more clear about Chand's risk to Christie.
"It's not up to mental health services to protect the public," he said.
"The court needed to act on that."
Goodwin said the kidnapping and assault "had nothing to do with a particular mental illness".
It was more about Chand's narcissistic personality traits and his obsession with Christie.
"This man essentially had to take responsibility for what he'd done," he said.
"The risks were outlined very clearly in the police opposition to bail.
"I would have expected the courts to keep him in prison."
"I would be disturbed if a judge saw these kinds of reports as evidence of diminished risk to give a person bail - they are not designed for that at all."
Goodwin suggested putting a disclaimer on such reports in the future could ensure judges did not use them for the wrong reason.
Chand 'wanted to get out and get on with things'
Forensic nurse Robin Byrt saw Chand at the North Shore District Court on September 8 2011, two days after his arrest for the initial attack on Christie.
Chand had undergone a basic mental health screen with Byrt's colleague Ellen Wilson the day before.
Byrt told the inquest today that Judge Morris had requested that Chand be remanded to a mental health unit rather than prison.
Byrt had to assess the youth before that could happen.
He then interviewed Chand and provided a letter to the court about his mental state.
"From my assessment I did not believe that Mr Chand fulfilled the Mental Health Act criteria to be in need of acute psychiatric administration," he said.
"While he had depression, it was not of such a degree that it posed a serious danger to himself or others.
"He was not expressing risk to himself or others."
Byrt said Chand was taking anti-depressants by then and had "a low risk profile".
Chand's mood was low and "flat" but he was conversant, answering questions articulately and staying on topic.
"He knew what he had done and why he was being held in prison. He knew what he had done was wrong," Byrt said.
Byrt the explained to Judge Mrris that Chand did not fulfil the criteria for admission to the mental health unit.
He was remanded in custody and Byrt advised the prison medical centre of the outcome.
Byrt saw Chand again before his next appearance on September 23.
"He said he had an improvement in his mood and felt more balanced," he said.
"He denied thoughts or plans to harm others, he was remorseful, he wanted to make amends.
"He knew he was in deep trouble. There was no evidence of thought disorder."
Chand was again remanded in custody and the day before his next appearance Byrt provided a letter to the court, defence and police outlining the youth's current mental state.
Byrt assessed Chand a third time before his appearance on September 29.
This time he told the court Chand "presented with no risks and was currently psychiatrically stable".
Chand was further remanded until October 5.
Byrt saw him briefly that morning in the cells and wrote a letter to the court stating Chand felt "well" and was pleased to be on anti-depressants.
"Today the defendant denies any risk issues to himself or others," the letter said.
"There are no psychotic features and no concerns from custodial staff."
In the cells Chand was again "flat" but denied any plans to harm himself or others.
"He wanted to get out and get on with things," Byrt said today.
"He was happy to take medication and abide by whatever bail conditions were set by the court."
Byrt said he was cognisant of the seriousness of the offending, but he could only assess Chand based on how he presented that day.
Judge McNaughton released Chand on bail that day.
Byrt followed up with community mental health staff after the hearing to organise "follow up and support".
The nurse had no further involvement with the case.