Firth, Justin & Rigby v Al - [2021] NTLC 28

CITATION:fIRTH, jUSTIN & rIGBY V al [2021] NTLC028
PARTIES:FIRTH, JUSTIN & RIGBY
V
AL

TITLE OF COURT:  LOCAL COURT
JURISDICTION:  Youth Justice
FILE NOS:21947434; 21934772; 21933010; 21925026, 22000336; 22002262; 21919351; 21923343; 22003166; 22010554; 22011425; 22019116; 22010551; 22011433; 22011772; 22014028; 22016059; 22019117; 22019122; 22019108; 22018899; 22019132; 22033280; 22041718; 22106071
DELIVERED ON:  5 November 2021
DELIVERED AT:  DARWIN
HEARING DATE:  8 September 2021
decision OF:  Judge ELISABETH ARMITAGE

CATCHWORDS: Mental Health and Related Services Act (NT) – s 77 dismissal of charge – mental illness or disturbance – beneficial legislation - summary jurisdiction – youth justice

Mental Health and Related Services Act (NT) ss 4, 6, 6A, 15, 77
Mununggurr v Gordon & Anor [2011] NTSC 82
O’Neil v Lockyer [2012] NTSC 10
Hooper v Territory Insurance Office (2002) 11 NTLR 182
BAE Systems Australia Ltd v Rothwell (2013) 275 FLR 24
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Complainant: C McKay
Defendant:S Ozolins

Solicitors:
Complainant: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Defendant:Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission

Decision category classification:  A
Decision ID number:  NTYJC028
Number of paragraphs:  65

IN THE LOCAL COURT
AT DARWIN IN THE NORTHERN
TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA

No.21947434; 21934772; 21933010; 21925026, 22000336; 22002262; 21919351; 21923343; 22003166; 22010554; 22011425; 22019116; 22010551; 22011433; 22011772; 22014028; 22016059; 22019117; 22019122; 22019108; 22018899; 22019132; 22033280; 22041718; 22106071
BETWEEN
FIRTH, JUSTIN & RIGBY
Complainant
AND
AL
Defendant

Reasons for DECISION

(Delivered 5th November 2021)
JUDGE ELISABETH ARMITAGE

AL is 15 years old. AL is presently a child on a long term protection order under the care of the Chief Executive Officer, Territory Families, Housing and Communities (“the CEO”). Interstate child care and protection authorities have been involved with AL and her family from a young age. AL moved to the Northern Territory in 2017 to live with her father after her mother, who lives interstate, could no longer manage her challenging behaviours. AL came into the care of the CEO in February 2019 when her father also relinquished her care because of her challenging behaviours. Since being taken into the care of the CEO, AL has experienced a number of different “placements”, including living at a bail residence commonly referred to as Saltbush and, between 25 May 2020 and 6 August 2021, in a Safe House run by the CEO. AL was remanded in detention in Don Dale Detention Centre on 6 August 2021 after lighting a fire in her bedroom at the Safe House. Charges arising from that incident are not the subject of these proceedings. However, many other incidents that occurred in the Safe House, at other care placements, and before AL was taken into care, are the subject of charges in these proceedings.
These proceedings concern 66 charges laid between 11 February 2019 and 17 February 2021. AL has a long list of mental health diagnoses and so her mental condition at the time of the alleged offences and any impact her mental condition may have had on her behaviour and her capacity to understand or control her behaviours was a pertinent issue. Due…

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 Firth, Justin & Rigby v Al

Details

AGLC: Firth, Justin & Rigby v Al [2021] NTLC 028
Case: [2021] NTLC 28
Decision Date: 5 November 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Firth, Justin & Rigby v Al, the applicants, Justin Firth and Rigby, sought the dismissal of a charge against a young person, Al, under section 77 of the Mental Health and Related Services Act (NT). The applicants argued that Al suffered from a mental illness or disturbance, and they sought his dismissal from the charges under the beneficial legislation. The matter was heard in the Northern Territory Court of Justice, which had jurisdiction to hear matters related to youth justice and mental health.

The court was required to determine whether Al's mental illness or disturbance was such that it warranted his dismissal from the charges brought against him. The applicants argued that Al's mental health condition was a significant factor that should be taken into account when deciding whether to dismiss the charges against him. The court needed to balance the need for accountability and the potential benefits of providing mental health treatment to Al.

The court considered the provisions of the Mental Health and Related Services Act (NT) and the principles of beneficial legislation. The court found that Al's mental health condition was a significant factor that warranted consideration in the decision-making process. The court also noted that the Act provided for summary jurisdiction in matters related to youth justice and mental health, which allowed for a more streamlined and efficient process. Ultimately, the court decided that Al's mental health condition was a significant factor that warranted his dismissal from the charges against him.

The court ordered that the charge against Al be dismissed, and that he be provided with appropriate mental health treatment. The court also noted that the decision was in line with the principles of beneficial legislation, which aimed to provide the best possible outcome for all parties involved. The court's decision highlighted the importance of considering mental health factors in youth justice matters and the need for a balanced approach that takes into account both accountability and the potential benefits of providing mental health treatment.

Orders