R v Slater (aka Shippey) - [2025] NZHC 2160

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…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Slater (aka Shippey) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NZHC 2160
Decision Date: 1 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the defendant, Jamie Mark Slater (also known as Shippey), faced a charge of murder. The case was heard on 1 August 2025, with C E Clarke and P M Lange representing the Crown, and N P Bourke and P M Keegan representing the defendant. The court had to determine whether Slater was responsible for the act that constituted the offence of murder and, if so, what should be done with him under the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 (CPMIP). On 9 June 2025, the defendant was found unfit to stand trial due to his mental condition. The court had to decide whether Slater caused the act that constituted the offence of murder and, if so, what disposition should be made under the CPMIP.

The court had to consider whether Slater was responsible for the murder of Mr Whaititiri Whakaruru. Based on the joint memorandum filed by counsel, the court found that there was sufficient evidence to establish on the balance of probabilities that Slater caused the act that constitutes the basis of the offence of murder. The court also found that there was no objective basis on which a defence of self-defence could be raised. Under section 10 of the CPMIP, the court was required to decide whether it was satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the evidence against Slater was sufficient to establish that he caused the act that forms the basis of the offence of murder. Having considered the joint memorandum and the fact that counsel for both the prosecution and defence agreed, the court found that Slater caused the act that constituted the basis of the offence of murder. The court then had to determine the appropriate disposition under sections 24 and 25 of the CPMIP.

The court considered whether Slater should be treated as a special patient under section 24(1)(a) of the CPMIP. If not, the court had to determine what alternative decision should be made under section 25 of the CPMIP. The court received a report from a psychiatrist, Dr Immelman, who recommended that Slater be detained in a hospital as a special patient. The court had to decide whether it was necessary in the interests of the public for Slater to be detained as a special patient. The court considered the circumstances of the case, the evidence of health assessors, and the need to manage and treat any medical and personality issues that Slater presented. The court found that Slater posed an ongoing risk to himself and others, and that detention as a special patient was necessary in the interests of the public. The court made an order for Slater to be detained in a secure psychiatric hospital as a special patient under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992.

Orders