Mununggurr v Gordon - [2011] NTSC 82

Mununggurr v Gordon & Anor, Mununggurr v Balchin & Anor, Mununggurr v Gordon & Anor, Mununggurr v Gordon, Mununggurr v Gordon and Mununggurr v Balchin [2011] NTSC 82
PARTIES: Mununggurr, Mickey
v
Gordon, Robert Karena
and
The Court of Summary Jurisdiction

AND: Mununggurr, Mickey
v
Balchin, Vivien Lynette
and
The Court of Summary Jurisdiction

AND: Mununggurr, Mickey
v
Gordon, Robert Karena
and
The Court of Summary Jurisdiction

AND: Mununggurr, Mickey
v
Gordon, Robert Karena

AND: Mununggurr, Mickey
v
Balchin, Vivien Lynette

TITLE OF COURT:   SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:   SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY EXERCISING APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FILE NO:   23 of 2011 (21108267), 24 of 2011 (21108270), 25 of 2011 (21108269); and JA 62 of 2010 (20818062), JA 63 of 2010 (20836006) and JA 64 of 2010 (21032919)
DELIVERED:   13 OCTOBER 2011
HEARING DATES:   8 APRIL 2011
JUDGMENT OF:   KELLY J
APPEAL FROM:   M CAREY SM
CATCHWORDS:

Mental Health and Related Services Act (NT) – s 77(2) – proper content of certificates – evidential value of certificates – whether conclusive – s 77(4) – Court required to be satisfied of matters in subsection – order granted in the nature of mandamus.

Justices Act (NT), s 162, s 163
Mental Health and Related Services Act (NT), s 74, s 77, s 77(2), s 77(3) and s 77(4)
Supreme Court Rules (NT), r 56
South Australia v Totani (2010) 242 CLR 1 – referred to
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Plaintiff/Appellant:   G Lewer
Defendants/Respondent:               P Usher
Solicitors:
Plaintiff/Appellant:   North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency
Defendants/Respondent:               Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Judgment category classification:    B
Judgment ID Number:   KEL 11021
Number of pages:   10

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
Mununggurr v Gordon & Anor, Mununggurr v Balchin & Anor and Mununggurr v Gordon & Anor, Mununggurr v Gordon, Mununggurr v Gordon and Mununggurr v Balchin [2011] NTSC 82
No. 23 of 2011 (21108267), 24 of 2011 (21108270), 25 of 2011 (21108269) and JA 62 of 2010 (20818062), JA 63 of 2010 (20836006) and
JA 64 of 2010 (21032919)

BETWEEN:
MICKEY MUNUNGGURR

Plaintiff
AND:
ROBERT KARENA GORDON

First Defendant
AND:
THE COURT OF SUMMARY JURISDICTION

Second Defendant
AND BETWEEN:
MICKEY MUNUNGGURR

Plaintiff
AND:
VIVIEN LYNETTE BALCHIN

First Defendant
THE COURT OF SUMMARY JURISDICTION

Second Defendant
AND BETWEEN:
MICKEY MUNUNGGURR

Plaintiff
AND:
ROBERT KARENA GORDON

First Defendant
AND:
THE COURT OF SUMMARY JURISDICTION

Second Defendant
AND BETWEEN:
MICKEY MUNUNGGURR

Appellant
AND:
ROBERT KARENA GORDON

Respondent
AND BETWEEN:
MICKEY MUNUNGGURR

Appellant
AND:
ROBERT KARENA GORDON

Respondent
AND BETWEEN:
MICKEY MUNUNGGURR

Appellant
AND:
VIVIEN LYNETTE BALCHIN

Respondent
CORAM: KELLY J

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 13 October 2011)
Background
[1] The plaintiff/appellant Mr Mickey Mununggurr appeared in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction charged with a number of offences. A question arose as to his mental condition at the time of the alleged offences and on 1 October 2010 the Court ordered that he be assessed and a report prepared by Top End Mental Health…

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 Mununggurr v Gordon

Details

AGLC: Mununggurr v Gordon & Anor, Mununggurr v Balchin & Anor, Mununggurr v Gordon & Anor, Mununggurr v Gordon, Mununggurr v Gordon and Mununggurr v Balchin [2011] NTSC 82
Case: [2011] NTSC 82
Decision Date: 13/10/2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Mununggurr v Gordon, the dispute centred on the interpretation and application of the Mental Health and Related Services Act (NT), particularly sections 77(2) and 77(4). The plaintiff, Mununggurr, sought to challenge the decision of the respondent, Gordon, who was the Chief Psychiatrist, regarding the validity of certificates issued under the Act. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory. The primary contention was whether the certificates issued by the Chief Psychiatrist were conclusive in their evidential value and what the Court's role was in verifying the matters stipulated in section 77(4) of the Act.

The court had to determine the proper content of the certificates as required by section 77(2) and whether these certificates held conclusive evidential value. Additionally, the court was required to assess the extent of its obligation under section 77(4) to be satisfied of specific matters detailed in the Act. The plaintiff argued that the certificates should not be treated as conclusive and that the Court had a duty to independently verify the matters stated in section 77(4). The respondent contended that the certificates were indeed conclusive and that the Court's role was limited to ensuring that the statutory requirements were met without further inquiry.

The Supreme Court found that the certificates, while required to meet the statutory criteria, did not possess conclusive evidential value. The Court held that it had a responsibility to be satisfied of the matters outlined in section 77(4) of the Act, thereby requiring an independent assessment of the evidence presented. The Court granted an order in the nature of mandamus, compelling the respondent to comply with the statutory requirements and ensuring that the Court's duty to verify the specified matters was upheld. This decision underscores the importance of judicial oversight in cases involving mental health certificates and the limitations of their conclusive nature.

Orders