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…

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 1153
Case: [2025] NZHC 1153
Decision Date: 14 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of The King v Slater was heard before Churchman J. The defendant, Jamie Slater, is awaiting trial for murder, with the trial scheduled to commence on 9 June 2025. The primary dispute in this case concerns Slater's fitness to stand trial, with conflicting expert opinions on his mental condition.

The court was tasked with determining whether Slater is fit to stand trial, particularly in light of recent expert reports indicating a significant deterioration in his mental condition. The primary issue was whether Slater's mental state had declined to the point where he was unfit to stand trial and, if so, what measures should be taken to address this issue. The court also had to consider whether a further psychiatric assessment was necessary and the implications of such an assessment on the trial schedule.

In delivering the judgment, Churchman J examined the reports of both Dr Immelman and Dr McFadden. Dr Immelman's recent report concluded that Slater was unfit to stand trial, noting a substantial decline in his condition over the past seven weeks. The court accepted Dr Immelman's view that a further report might be useful to understand the causes of this deterioration but also acknowledged the low likelihood of a change in the conclusion regarding Slater's fitness to stand trial. The court also noted the Crown's right to cross-examine Dr McFadden, who was not available for the hearing. Consequently, the court adjourned the hearing to allow for the cross-examination and ordered an updated report from Dr Immelman, focusing on the causes of Slater's condition deterioration. The court remanded Slater to a secure psychiatric facility for ten days to facilitate this report.

The court's final orders included vacating the trial fixture of 9 June 2025, adjourning the s 8A hearing, requesting Dr Immelman to prepare a further report, and directing Slater's transfer to a secure psychiatric facility for the duration of the report preparation.

Orders