R v Slater

[2025] NZHC 1153

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA NGĀMOTU ROHE

CRI-2024-043-626

[2025] NZHC 1153

THE KING

v

JAMIE SLATER

Hearing:

14 May 2025

Appearances:

C E Clarke for Crown

N Bourke and P M Keegan for Defendant

Judgment:

14 May 2025

JUDGMENT OF CHURCHMAN J

[1]                 Mr Slater is awaiting trial on a charge of murder. That trial is to commence on 9 June 2025.

[2]                 The Court is in receipt of two reports, one from a neuro-psychologist which made a recommendation that the defendant was unfit to stand trial. There was some tentativeness in that conclusion.  A  further  report  was  then  commissioned  from Dr Immelman.

[3]                 Dr Immelman’s report has just become available. It concludes that the defendant is unfit to stand trial. It notes a significant deterioration in his condition over the seven weeks since the prior report was obtained.

R v SLATER [2025] NZHC 1153 [14 May 2025]

[4]                 The possible explanations for that include: self-harm by way of head banging on the part of the defendant; as well as the possibility of the effect of not taking medications, which included the defendant sustaining a clonic seizure which contributed to or caused the further incidents of self-harm and potential brain damage.

[5]                 The hearing this morning has proceeded on the basis of cross-examination of Dr Immelman. He has confirmed the general thrust of his report. When it was put to him by the Crown that there may be some utility in a further report on, in particular, the reasons for the deterioration of the defendant, he agreed that it was potentially of some utility, although he did express the opinion that, while there may be a possibility of him revising his conclusion that the defendant may, at some point, recover so as to be fit to plead, it was improbable or unforeseeable that, in the future, he would reach the conclusion that the defendant would be fit to stand trial.

[6]                 Ms Clarke for the Crown has  indicted  that  she  wishes  to  cross-examine Dr McFadden. Dr McFadden is presently overseas. The Crown is entitled to cross-examine the witness. It is unfortunate the witness was not able to appear by VMR today however that does not mean that the Crown loses that right.

[7]                 I am therefore  obliged  to  adjourn  the  s  8A  Criminal  Procedure  (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 hearing to allow the Crown the opportunity to cross-examine Dr McFadden.

[8]                 That leaves the issue of whether or not a further s 38 report should be obtained. Dr Immelman has indicated that, if instructed, he is in the position to undertake that. His suggestion was that the defendant be remanded to a secure psychiatric facility for that to occur. He indicated that environment would be preferable to the continuing in prison environment.

[9]                 Mr Keegan for the defence opposes such a further assessment. His grounds for that being that it would effectively be a waste of time as Dr Immelman would be unlikely to change his opinion. He also relied on the issue of delay but acknowledged that it is inevitable there would be some delay by virtue of the need to reconvene the

s 8A hearing.    He acknowledged to need to give the Crown the opportunity to cross-examine Dr McFadden.

[10]             On the basis of the overall situation, I believe it is appropriate for there to be an updated report. There is no opposition to Dr Immelman doing that and given that he is prepared to do that and given his background with the defendant it would be the most efficient for him to do that. I will follow that course.

[11]             I therefore request Dr Immelman to provide an updating report, in particular to focus on the issue of the causes, to the extent he can ascertain them, of what appears to be a dramatic deterioration in the defendant’s condition over the past seven weeks.

[12]             I now turn to the issue of where the defendant is to be over the next period of time. I can, in accordance with s 38(2)(c), for a period of 10 days, direct that he be transferred to a secure psychiatric facility. I do that. There is the opportunity to extend that period to 30 days by consent. It may well be that it becomes necessary. That is a matter I can not direct at the moment but I request counsel to investigate whether that is a possibility.

Outcome

[13]The outcome of this is that:

(a)The trial fixture of 9 June 2025 is vacated.

(b)The  s  8A  hearing  is  adjourned,  part  heard.    It  will  continue  on 4 June 2025 at 10am. The cross-examination of Dr McFadden (who may appear by VMR) will occur on the same day.

(c)Dr Immelman is requested to prepare a further s 38(1)(a) report for the purposes indicated above.

(d)The defendant is remanded to the Henry Rongomau Bennett Centre for 10 days commencing 15 May 2025 for the sole purpose of facilitating the report. On completion of the assessment by Dr Immelman, or at the

latest, 25 May 2025, the defendant is to return to prison on remand until 4 June 2025 or such earlier date as the Court may direct.

(e)I direct that the existing reports of Dr McFadden and Dr Immelman be made available to the Forensic Nurse Glenda Schmacher to be provided by her to the Manager of the Henry Rongomau Bennett Centre.

Churchman J

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, New Plymouth for Crown