Epsom double stabbing: Man who killed Herman and Elizabeth Bangera to remain at mental facility

A man who stabbed to death a married couple in Epsom last year turned his knife on them only after they both tried to intervene while he stabbed their friend who he believed was Satan, it was revealed today as the man was ordered to stay indefinitely at a lockdown psychiatric facility

The man, who was found not guilty by reason of insanity in March, appeared in the High Court at Auckland last week for a disposition hearing before Justice Neil Campbell.

In a written judgment released to the media today, Campbell declined to order the psychiatric patient's immediate release and also rejected the man's request for permanent name suppression. However, suppression remains in place on an interim basis while the decision is appealed.

Police found Herman and Elizabeth Bangera critically hurt at their Epsom home on March 19, 2021. Both died a short time later at the scene - an incident that Detective Inspector Scott Beard described at the time as an "absolute tragedy".

Herman and Elizabeth Bangera suffered fatal injuries at their Epsom home. Photo / Supplied

The patient was also found at the property along with the couple's friend - both also wounded. They were each taken to Auckland City Hospital, with the defendant going into police custody as soon as he was discharged and to the Mason Clinic psychiatric facility soon after that.

The newly released judgment offers an account of what is believed to have happened that day.

The patient, who is schizophrenic, told psychologists he started hearing two voices on the morning of the attack, which he interpreted as coming from God and Satan.

"Satan's voice told [him] that love existed; God's voice told him it did not," the judge wrote in the judgment, citing a report from one of the psychologists.

The patient said he thought the man he initially attacked was the "materialisation of Satan" and was controlling the couple.

Armed with a large kitchen knife, he lunged at the man and the two fell to the ground. The first victim was able to grab the knife, suffering cuts to his hand as Herman and Elizabeth Bangera ran over to intervene.

The initial victim was able to retreat inside the Bangeras' home, but the knife was then used to attack both of them, court documents state.

"[The friend] called 111 and spoke to the ambulance operator. Meanwhile, Herman moved into the hallway where Elizabeth lay. He too collapsed and died of blood loss. Outside, [the patient] sat on the ground and stabbed himself in the abdomen and chest."

Two neighbours of the couple saw the man stabbing himself and tended to him.

"He said he felt compelled to kill himself to prove that love existed," a psychologist reported. "He expressed a belief that the events of that morning were being monitored or broadcast."

Herman Bangera, 60, had been a volunteer at Child Evangelism Fellowship. Organisation director Pamela Brooking described him last year as a "lovely man and wonderful dad". His family, she said, was the "epitome of what family is".

Elizabeth Bangera, 55, worked at the University of Auckland. A university spokesperson described her as a "highly respected colleague and friend".

On March 22, 2021, police descended on an Epsom home where Herman and Elizabeth Bangera were fatally stabbed. Photo / George Heard

The couple moved into their Epsom flat around 2007, after immigrating to New Zealand from India, because of the school zone there, a neighbour and friend of the couple previously told the Herald.

Both prosecutors and the defence agreed in March, after reviewing two psychological reports, that the defendant should be found not guilty by reason of insanity. He had initially been set to go to trial in April for the double murder and attempted murder charges.

Insanity findings are allowed when it is determined a person's thinking was so disordered that he or she didn't understand that what they were doing was morally wrong.

Such findings are followed by disposition hearings, in which judges decide whether the person poses a continuing risk of serious harm. Because the judge has determined that is the case, the man was deemed a special patient under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment).

"There is a clear risk of [him] experiencing a schizophrenic relapse," Justice Campbell wrote in his judgment. "There is a demonstrated nexus between his mental illness and his violent offending. [He] has an unrealistic assessment of his own condition and rehabilitation timeline.

"All of these matters indicated that detention as a special patient is needed to protect the public ..."

According to the law, he will now remain detained as a special patient until the Minister of Health or the national director of Mental Health deems he is no longer a risk - a period that potentially could be longer than a prison sentence had he been found guilty.

Justice Campbell said at the outset of the hearing last week that the disposition issue was "quite clear" - with both sides agreeing it was necessary - and no discussion was needed other than what was already filed. Based on psychological reports, it appears a "reasonable amount of time" will pass before he is released, the judge surmised.

However, more discussion was needed for the name suppression issue.

Crown prosecutor Robin McCoubrey noted that the surviving victim of the attack didn't have a strong opinion either way, but he said that if name suppression helped the man recover that would be best.

Defence lawyer Shane Cassidy said revealing the man's name could set back his rehabilitation, especially once he is eventually released back into the community.

"It could be a trigger for ongoing issues to do with his mental health that he is going to be dealing with for the rest of his life," Cassidy argued. "That is not going to help."

Revealing his client's name would also equate to "public shaming" for something he was not convicted of, Cassidy argued.

"[He] did not choose to become mentally unwell," he said. "He did not want to develop symptoms of schizophrenia.

"My client has come to terms ... with the fact that as a result of what happened both [of the victims] are dead. This is something counsel suspects he will be dealing with or the rest of his natural life."

Suppression would give his client the "dignity" of deciding how he reveals his past to people once he is released into society with careful oversight, Cassidy said.

But if he is ever to reintegrate back into society he must understand what he did, and part of his coming to terms with what happened must include acceptance that others are aware of it, the Crown argued.

While sympathetic to both arguments, the judge ultimately sided with the Crown.

"Based on [the psychological] report, I am satisfied that publication of [his] name may hinder his recovery and delay his community reintegration," the judge wrote. "I also accept that publication may increase the risk of relapse and readmissions. I regard all of these as possibilities that are not fanciful. They are ... likely."

However, to qualify for permanent name suppression one must demonstrate an "extreme" hardship and that threshold has not been met, the judge said. Even if it had, Justice Campbell said, he likely would have denied the request anyway.

"First, I accept Mr McCoubrey's submission that for [the patient] to reintegrate into society, he must come to terms not only with what happened but also that others will know what happened," he wrote.

"Secondly, prospective employers and partners of [the patient] should be able to find out [his] background."

Suppression, he said, would have made that unfeasible.