R v Slater - [2025] NZHC 1497

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA NGĀMOTU ROHE

CRI-2024-043-626

[2025] NZHC 1497

THE KING

v

JAMIE SLATER

Hearing: 4 June 2025

Appearances:

C E Clarke and P Lange for Crown

N Bourke and P M Keegan for Defendant

Judgment:

9 June 2025

JUDGMENT OF CHURCHMAN J

[Fitness to stand trial]

Background

[1] The first part of a hearing under s 8A of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 (CPMIP) was held on 14 May 2025. The hearing was adjourned until 4 June 2025 to allow the Crown an opportunity to cross-examine Dr McFadden. Dr McFadden had filed a Health Assessor Report but had been out of the country on 14 May 2025 and unavailable for cross-examination.

[2] In my decision adjourning the s 8A hearing1 I also directed that Dr Immelman prepare a further s 38(1)(a) report. That further report was received shortly before the 4 June 2025 hearing commenced.

1 R v Slater [2025] NZHC 1153.

R v SLATER [2025] NZHC 1497 [9 June 2025]

The resumed hearing

[3] When cross-examined by the Crown Solicitor, Dr McFadden acknowledged that there had been a significant change in the defendant’s presentation since her original interview of him. She noted that there were a number of risk factors likely to be in play as being causative of the defendant’s current presentation.

[4] When questioned whether the defendant’s behaviour might indicate a choice to try to “play the system” Dr McFadden responded by saying that the defendant has a highly damaged brain and appeared to be unable to regulate his cognitive processes and emotions. She did not see the defendant’s behaviour as being within his control but rather was the product of the brain injuries he had sustained. She expressed the opinion that there was no point in obtaining a communication assistant (other than in a therapeutic context).

[5] She expressed the view that she was now of the opinion that the defendant could no longer be considered fit to plead. She also expressed the view that the defendant did not have the capacity either to make a plea or to give evidence. She thought that, on the basis of the contents of Dr Immelman’s further report, that the defendant’s capacity to communicate had deteriorated since the time she interviewed him.

[6] When she was asked whether she had concern that the defendant could be “malingering” Dr McFadden’s response was to say that the behaviour that Dr Immelman had noted in his second report could be described as a continuation of his pre-existing behaviour and as a product of the stress the defendant was experiencing. She did not see it as an attempt on the part of the defendant to present himself as being more impaired than he actually was.

[7] Dr Immelman’s report of 4 June 2025 expressed a number of relevant conclusions. These are:

(a)[The defendant’s] mental health problems include a range of psychiatric, cognitive, and behavioural domains.…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Slater

Details

AGLC: R v Slater [2025] NZHC 1497
Case: [2025] NZHC 1497
Decision Date: 9 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of R v Slater was heard by Churchman J. The defendant, Jamie Slater, faced charges under the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003. The primary dispute was whether Slater was fit to stand trial due to his mental impairments. The hearing involved expert testimonies from Dr McFadden and Dr Immelman, both health assessors, who provided insights into Slater's mental and cognitive state.

The court had to decide if Slater was fit to stand trial under section 8A of the CPMIP Act, considering his capacity to understand the proceedings, communicate with his counsel, and participate in his defence. The court also needed to determine Slater's involvement in the alleged offence under section 10 of the Act, assessing whether there was sufficient evidence to establish his involvement and if any defence, such as self-defence, could be substantiated.

Churchman J found that Slater was unfit to stand trial, based on the expert evidence presented. The court noted Slater's significant mental health issues, including chronic depression, anxiety, and a Major Neurocognitive Disorder due to traumatic brain injuries. The court concluded that Slater could not adequately understand the proceedings or communicate with his counsel. Consequently, the court ordered that Slater be remanded to a secure psychiatric facility to facilitate further assessments regarding the most suitable method of dealing with him under the Act. The court scheduled subsequent hearings to address Slater's involvement in the offence and the appropriate disposition for him.

Orders