R v Slater (aka Shippey)
[2025] NZHC 2160
•1 August 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA NGĀMOTU ROHE
CRI-2024-043-626
[2025] NZHC 2160
THE KING v
JAMIE MARK SLATER (AKA SHIPPEY)
Hearing: 1 August 2025 Counsel:
C E Clarke and P M Lange for Crown
N P Bourke and P M Keegan for Defendant
Judgment:
1 August 2025
ORAL JUDGMENT OF CHURCHMAN J
(Involvement and disposition)
Involvement
[1] In a decision dated 9 June 2025, I found the defendant, Jamie Slater, unfit to stand trial on a charge of murder.1
[2] As a result of the finding that the defendant was unfit to stand trial, I am obliged to inquire into the defendant’s involvement in the offence under s 10 of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 (CPMIP).
[3] Prior to today’s hearing, counsel filed a joint memorandum. The memorandum concluded with the following agreements:
1 R v Slater [2025] NZHC 1497.
R v SLATER [2025] NZHC 2160 [1 August 2025]
There is sufficient evidence from the formal written statements filed as summarised above to establish on the balance of probabilities that the defendant caused the act that constitutes the basis of the offence of murder.
There is no objective basis on which a defence of self-defence could be raised.
The law
[4] Section 10 CPMIP provides that I must decide whether I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the evidence against the defendant is sufficient to establish that the defendant caused the act or omission that forms the basis of the offence with which the defendant is charged.2
[5] Having considered the matters referred to in the joint memorandum of counsel, and the fact that counsel for the prosecution and defence are both agreed, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the defendant caused the act that is the basis of the offence of the murder of the deceased.
[6] I am now required to determine disposition – in other words, how to deal with the defendant under ss24 and 25 CPMIP. This involves a consideration of whether the defendant should be treated as a special patient under s 24(1)(a) CPMIP and, if not, whether some alternative decision should be made under s 25 CPMIP.
Disposition
[7]On 9 June 2025, the defendant was found unfit to stand trial.3
[8] I have today found the defendant, on the balance of probabilities, to be responsible for the death of Mr Whaititiri Whakaruru.
[9] A report has been obtained from a psychiatrist, Dr Immelman, who recommended that the defendant be detained in a hospital as a special patient pursuant to s 24(2)(a) CPMIP.
[10]I must now consider what should happen to the defendant.
2 Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003, s 10(2).
3 R v Slater [2025] NZHC 1497 at [13].
[11]Section 24 CPMIP provides:
Detention of defendant found unfit to stand trial or insane as special patient or special care recipient
(1)When the court has sufficient information on the condition of a defendant found unfit to stand trial or acquitted on account of his or her insanity, the court must–
(a)consider all the circumstances of the case; and
(b)consider the evidence of one or more health assessors as to whether the detention of the defendant in accordance with one of the orders specified in subs (2) is necessary; and
(c)make one of the orders referred to in para (b) if it is satisfied that the making of the order is necessary in the interests of the public or any person or class of person who may be affected by the courts’ decision.
(2)The orders referred to in subs (1) are that the defendant be detained–
(a)in hospital as a special patient under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992; or
(b)in a secure facility as a special care recipient under the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003.
(3)Before the court makes an order specified in subs (a) the court must have received evidence, under subs (1)(b) about the defendant from at least one health assessor who is a psychiatrist.
[12] The leading case in this area is the Court of Appeal decision in M (CA 819/2011) v R.4
[13]In that case, the Court of Appeal held:5
In determining whether it is necessary to make an order under s 24(2), the Court undertakes a judicial assessment that is wider in some respects than the medical assessments made by health assessors. It must determine whether an order under s 24(2) is necessary in the interests of the public.
[14] The Court of Appeal also held that a Court must therefore take into account both the immediate and long-term risks that the offender poses, as well as the need to
4 M (CA 819/2011) v R [2012] NZCA 142.
5 At [7].
comprehensively manage and treat any medical and/or personality issues that he or she presents.6
[15] An order under s 24(2) CPMIP is the most restrictive of the orders available to the Court.
[16] With an order under s 24(2), the Minister determines how long the order is to remain in force7 and the special patient status continues until the Minister of Health directs either that the defendant be discharged or that he or she be held as a patient or care-recipient.
[17] The threshold for making an order under s 24 CPMIP is that detention must be “necessary” in the interests of the public or those who may be affected by the Court’s decision. The Court must consider all the circumstances of the case, having considered the evidence of one or more health assessors, decide whether the public interest requires the defendant to be detained as a special patient or a special care recipient.
[18]The standard of “necessity” sets a high threshold.8
[19] The Court cannot make an order under s 24(2) CPMIP unless it is satisfied that such an order is necessary in the interests of the public. As noted above, the judicial assessment required under s 24(1)(c) may be wider in scope than the assessments undertaken by health professionals.
The evidence
[20] Dr Immelman, a forensic psychiatrist, has provided a report dated 24 July 2025. That report notes:
·The defendant continues to present with significant behavioural and cognitive deficits such as impulsivity, emotional dysregulation and limited insight;
6 At [8].
7 At s 33(2) CPMIP.
8 M (CA 819/2011) v R, above n 4, at [7].
·He poses an ongoing risk to himself, including the possible recurrence of self-injurious behaviours and express suicidality;
·He is at a very high risk of reoffending;
·He poses a significantly elevated risk of harm to others and
·He has very significant personal vulnerability.
[21] As to whether an order under s 24(2)(a) CPMIP was required, Dr Immelman expressed the following conclusion:
My examination points unequivocally toward the need for such an order to be made in the interests of the public or any person or class of person who may be affected by the court’s decision.
[22] In coming to this decision, Dr Immelman confirmed that he had considered whether alternative decisions pursuant to s 25 CPMIP were appropriate and confirmed that he remained of the view that an order under s 24(2)(a) was required.
[23] Counsel have filed a joint memorandum dated 29 July 2025 where they submit that, following the reading of Dr Immelman’s reports, the Crown and defence believe that the Court will be satisfied that ordering the defendant to be detained in a hospital as a special patient under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992 is necessary in the interests of the public.
Analysis
[24] The defendant’s offending was particularly serious. He stabbed the victim causing the victim’s death. He was charged with murder. He has a long criminal record including a conviction for manslaughter.
[25] He has structural damage to his brain which cannot be cured. This renders him prone to the type of action he engaged in in the present case. Dr Immelman’s conclusions, discussed above, are not disputed by either counsel.
Outcome
[26] I am satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of the public for the defendant to be detained in a secure psychiatric hospital as a special patient pursuant to s 24(2)(a) CPMIP and I make that order.
Further orders
[27] I authorise the release of Dr Immelman’s report of 24 July 2025 and all other health assessor reports provided to the Court in this case, to be provided to Ms Shoemack for forwarding by her to the relevant mental health providers.
[28] I authorise release to the media of the joint memorandum dated 22/23 July 2025 in respect of s 10 of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003.
Churchman J
Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, New Plymouth
0