The King v Manu - [2025] NTSC 5

CITATION:The King v Manu [2025] NTSC 5
PARTIES:THE KING
v

MANU, Rocky

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  SUPREME COURT exercising Territory jurisdiction
FILE NO:21139380
DELIVERED:  11 February 2025
HEARING DATE:  12 September 2024
JUDGMENT OF:  Kelly J

CATCHWORDS:
Criminal Code s 43ZD – application to revoke non-custodial supervision order and release the supervised person unconditionally – s 43ZL – report of next of kin of deceased victim received by the Court and taken into account - s 43ZM – the Court must apply the principle that restrictions on a supervised person’s freedom and personal autonomy are to be kept to a minimum that is consistent with maintaining and protecting the safety of the community – order made unconditionally discharging the supervised person from the non-custodial supervision order
Criminal Code 1983 (NT), s 43H, s 43I, s 43ZD, s 43ZG(3)(a), s 43ZG(6), s 43ZH, s 43ZH(2)(a), s 43ZH(3), s 43ZH(3)(d), s 43ZK, s 43ZL, s 43ZL(3), s 43ZM, s 43ZN, s 156, Part IIA
Mental Health and Related Services Act 1998 (NT)
Sentencing Act 1995 (NT), s 53A(1)(a)
R v KMD [2015] NTSC 31; R v Murdoch [2024] NTSC 60; Inquest into the death of Gwyyneth Kintala Vaezl Cassiopeia Roennfeldt (aka Jasmine Roennfeldt) [2013] NTMC 023, referred to

REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Crown:D Jones
Accused:A Abayasekara
CEO Department of Health:        R Brebner
Solicitors:
Crown:Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Accused:Northern Territory Legal Aid
CEO Department of Health:        Solicitor for the Northern Territory
Judgment category classification:    B
Judgment ID Number:  Kel2503
Number of pages:  24

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
The King v Manu [2025] NTSC 5

No. 21139380

BETWEEN:

THE KING

AND:

ROCKY MANU

CORAM: KELLY J
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 11 February 2025)
Background and Procedural History

On 15 August 2012, Rocky Manu was charged with murdering the deceased on or about 14 November 2011, contrary to s 156 of the Criminal Code 1983 (NT) (the Code).
Mr Manu’s actions were found to be as a result of a mental impairment, namely schizophrenia coupled with a history of alcohol and illicit drug misuse. At the time that Mr Manu killed the deceased, his schizophrenia had not been effectively treated for over three months, resulting in paranoid delusions and irrational beliefs that the deceased was trying to harm him.[1]
On 11 September 2012, the Court accepted a plea of not guilty due to mental impairment under s 43H and formally declared that Mr Manu was liable to supervision pursuant to s 43I of the Code.
On 3 July 2013, Mr Manu was made subject to a Custodial Supervision Order (CSO) and a nominal term of 20 years imprisonment was imposed to commence on 14 November 2011.[2]
On 20 December 2017, the CSO was varied to allow the Commissioner of Correctional Services to release Mr Manu from custody for periods as determined in consultation with staff for the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Health (the…

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 The King v Manu

Details

AGLC: The King v Manu [2025] NTSC 5
Case: [2025] NTSC 5
Decision Date: 11 February 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of The King v Manu, the court was tasked with deciding whether Mr Manu should be discharged from his Northern Territory Supervision Order (NCSO). The decision was based on the medical expert reports of Dr Kini and Dr Madadi, who both assessed Mr Manu's mental health and risk of violent recidivism. The family of the deceased argued for indefinite mental health management, while the court considered the evidence provided by the medical experts and the submissions from all parties.

The legal issue before the court was whether Mr Manu, who had a history of schizophrenia and violence, posed an ongoing risk to the community or himself, warranting indefinite psychiatric case management. The court was required to balance the risk of harm against the need for Mr Manu's rehabilitation and reintegration into society, considering the expert medical opinions and the views of the deceased's family.

The court found that Mr Manu's mental health had stabilised, and he had been compliant with treatment and monitoring. Both Dr Kini and Dr Madadi concluded that Mr Manu posed a low risk of danger to the community or himself, provided he continued to comply with his treatment regime. The court took into account the recommendations of additional supports to mitigate any risk of future violent recidivism and Mr Manu's commitment to engage with treatment. The court decided that Mr Manu should be unconditionally discharged from the NCSO, considering the expert medical opinions and the protective factor of his family's support.

The final order of the court was that Mr Manu should be unconditionally discharged from the Northern Territory Supervision Order, subject to the implementation of the additional supports recommended by the medical experts to mitigate any risk of future violent recidivism. The court's decision was based on the evidence of Mr Manu's stable mental health, compliance with treatment, and the low risk of danger to the community or himself.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Mr Manu’s family stated their understanding that mental health psychiatric case management as outlined in the expert reports should be in place for Mr Manu indefinitely.Consideration I have taken into account the submissions of all parties, including the deceased’s family and the expert reports of Dr Kini and Dr Madadi. While I am sympathetic to the concerns of the family of the deceased I am of the view that Mr Manu should be unconditionally discharged from the NCSO. Both Dr Kini and Dr Madadi expressed the view that with appropriate support and compliance with his treatment regime, Mr Manu posed a low risk of danger to the community or himself. I consider the following matters, set out in those reports to be of particular significance.(a)Mr Manu had not exhibited any psychotic symptoms in the review period and despite residual negative symptoms, his mental health had remained stable.[53](b)His schizophrenia had been in remission for a number of years and over the review period he had maintained a stable mental state and been compliant with treatment and clinical monitoring.[54](c)Mr Manu has been complying well with his psychiatric medication treatment and during the last phase of his NCSO was independently managing his medication and, with support of community access, attending treatment and follow up appointments at the Tamarind Centre without issues.(d)Mr Manu has expressed his commitment to engage with treatment even if he is no longer under a supervision order.(e)If Mr Manu stops complying with his psychiatric treatment in future, his treating team could apply for a Community Management Order under the Mental Health and Related Services Act 1998 (NT) to ensure compliance.[55](f)Mr Manu has continued to abstain from alcohol and illicit drugs and engaged with professionals assisting his treatment and recovery.(g)Mr Manu has good insight into the harmful effects of alcohol and illicit drugs on his mental health and their propensity to increase his risk of violent recidivism.[56](h)Due to Mr Manu’s improved insight into the psycho-social contributors to his risk, the doctors expressed the view that he is likely to cooperate with his treating team in complying with non-pharmacological interventions if recommended to him.(i)Dr Kini considered all five previously identified future risk items to be not present and not relevant.[57](j)Dr Kini concluded that in the event of Mr Manu’s NCSO being removed, he would pose a low risk to the community and that that risk could be appropriately managed by AMHT. Both doctors considered that Mr Manu’s improved insight meant that a court imposed order was no longer necessary to ensure compliance.(k)In his supplementary report, after being referred to the concerns expressed by the deceased’s family, Dr Kini liaised with FMHT and AMHT and a series of additional supports were recommended and will be put in place to mitigate any risk of future violent recidivism on the part of Mr Manu. (These are set out at [44] above.)(l)Mr Manu has the protective factor of care and support from his family who have supported him throughout his period of supervision and will continue to do so.