High Court Registry closure

The High Court Registry will be closed from 4.00pm on Wednesday, 24 December 2025 and will re-open at 9:00am on Friday, 2 January 2026.

Any party seeking to file a document due to be filed between 25 December 2025 and 1 January 2026 has an automatic extension of time under the  High Court Rules 2004 (Rule 4.01.5) until 4:00pm on Friday, 2 January 2026 to file the document. Any documents lodged between 25 December 2025 and 1 January 2026 will be reviewed on 2 January 2026.

All inquiries for the High Court will be considered when the Registry re-opens on Friday, 2 January 2026.If a matter is of extreme urgency, you may telephone 1800 570 566, select Option 1 and leave a voicemail. In addition provide details by email to: registry@hcourt.gov.au.

KMD v. CEO (Department of Health NT) & Ors

Case No. D2/2024
Case information

Lower Court Judgment

23/07/2024 Supreme Court of the Northern Territory (Blokland, Reeves & Burns JJ)

[2024] NTCCA 8

Catchwords

Criminal law – mental impairment – supervision orders – where appellant found not guilty by reason of mental impairment of eight offences and subject to custodial supervision order under s 43X(2) of Criminal Code (NT) – where such order required first respondent to submit to Court report on treatment or management of supervised person’s impairment and Court may conduct review to determine whether person may be released from custodial supervision order – where on completion of review s 43ZH(2) Criminal Code required Court to vary order to non-custodial supervision order unless satisfied on the evidence that safety of supervised person or public will be seriously at risk if person released on non-custodial supervision order – where primary judge made non-custodial supervision order – where majority of Court of Criminal Appeal found not reasonably open to primary judge to find safety of public not seriously at risk if appellant placed on non-custodial supervision order – proper standard of appellate review to be applied – whether majority in finding correctness standard rather than House v King standard applied – whether majority erred in ordering custodial supervision order be confirmed without providing appellant with further hearing or opportunity to adduce evidence relevant to risk based on time she spent in community following primary judge’s decision in circumstances where conduct of appeal gave rise to reasonable expectation that if CCA found error she would be afforded further hearing – whether majority erred in ordering custodial supervision order without any evidence relevant to risk arising from appellant’s time in community – whether majority erred in holding primary judge’s periodic review miscarried because appellant refused to engage with one of persons who prepared report under s 43ZN(2)(a) of Criminal Code.

Case Summary

Download this detailed case study to gain deeper insights.

Documents

10/10/2024 Determination

24/10/2024 Notice of appeal

21/11/2024 Written submissions (Appellant)

21/11/2024 Chronology (Appellant)

19/12/2024 Written submissions (First Respondent)

14/01/2025 Reply (not publicly available)

11/02/2025 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra) (Transcript and AV Recording will not be published)

11/02/2025 Outline of oral argument (First Respondent)

27/02/2025 Judgment (Judgment summary)