• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

KMD’s history matters to the application’s context. After serious violent offending in 2013 while operating under a delusional belief system, she was found unfit to stand trial and, following a special hearing, not guilty by reason of mental impairment. In 2014, a custodial supervision order was made for a fixed term of 16 years, backdated to her arrest in 2013. She remained in custody for about ten years ([7]-[9]).

In 2023, Brownhill J decided that KMD should be placed on an NCSO. Her Honour had determined that she was not satisfied the safety of the public would be seriously at risk if KMD were released. The NCSO took effect on 12 July 2023, and KMD was released ([10]). The first respondent’s application to stay that order pending its appeal was refused. The NTCCA considered that sufficient safeguards were contained in the NCSO to manage risk pending the appeal ([11]).

While the first respondent’s appeal was awaiting judgment, KMD remained in the community. The first respondent did not seek another stay during that period, and the powers under s 43ZF of the Criminal Code Act 1983 (NT) were not exercised. Brownhill J reviewed and varied the NCSO. At a further review in June 2024, evidence was received from people including KMD’s general practitioner, social worker, family members, employer and a friend. KMD relied on evidence of her conduct in the community. The reported statement from Matthew Chick was that there had been no evidence since the NCSO began that KMD had endangered another person ([12]-[14]).

The NTCCA allowed the first respondent’s appeal on 23 July 2024. Its majority found, among other things, that it was not reasonably open to find that public safety would not be seriously at risk if KMD were placed on an NCSO. It also found that the order did not provide for regular monitoring and, at least, counselling by a psychiatrist or psychologist approved by the relevant mental health service ([15]).

KMD filed her special leave application on 12 August 2024. Her interlocutory application sought a stay, and alternatively expedited consideration. By the time Gleeson J determined the application, special leave had been granted and the appeal had been expedited. The remaining practical issue was whether KMD should be released under the former NCSO while awaiting the appeal. Gleeson J decided the application on the papers under r 13.03.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth) ([3]-[6]).

Why the court decided this way

Gleeson J began with the source and purpose of the Court’s power. The High Court can stay orders that are, or may become, the subject of its appellate jurisdiction as an incident of the power to make that jurisdiction effective. A stay may be appropriate to preserve the subject matter of the appeal or to avoid practical problems with relief the Court might later grant ([21]). The judgment cited United Mexican States v Cabal, Re Moore; Ex parte Pillar and other authorities for that proposition.

The Court distinguished the threshold for obtaining a stay from the question whether the particular stay was justified. Because special leave had been granted, KMD did not have to show exceptional circumstances. But Gleeson J emphasised that loss of liberty, although inherently serious, is not by itself enough: that consideration arises whenever detention pending an appeal depends on the appeal’s success ([21]).

The decisive question was whether release was necessary to ensure that the High Court’s appellate jurisdiction remained effective. Gleeson J accepted that KMD had reasonable prospects of success, but considered that she could prosecute the appeal and receive the benefit of a successful appeal whether or not she remained in custody. The subject matter was the legality of the NCSO. This was unlike an appeal against a sentence where the whole or a substantial part of a fixed custodial term might be served before the appeal was decided, potentially leaving little practical relief available ([22]-[23]).

The Court also identified a difficulty with the specific relief KMD sought. The NTCCA had made findings that the basis for the NCSO was flawed, including that the risk conclusion was not reasonably open and that the order lacked specified mental-health monitoring and counselling. Those findings remained extant while the appeal was pending. Gleeson J noted that it was unclear whether the proposed appeal would put those findings in issue, and concluded that, while they remained, there was no appropriate basis to release KMD on the particular terms of the existing NCSO ([24]).

Finally, the proposed stay would have required the Court to release KMD into the community despite a dispute between the parties about public-safety risk. Gleeson J considered that the High Court was not positioned to resolve that factual issue on the interlocutory application ([25]). This did not decide the ultimate merits of the NCSO or the appeal. It explained why the requested interim order was not available on the record and procedural posture before the Court.

Before and after state of the law

The judgment did not purport to change the law governing stays. It applied established principles about the High Court’s ancillary power to protect the effective exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. The relevant authorities, including Cabal and Re Moore, were cited for the proposition that a stay can be used where necessary to preserve the subject matter of litigation or avoid practical difficulties in granting eventual relief ([21]).

The decision’s clarification is practical. A serious impact on the applicant, including loss of liberty, is relevant but does not automatically establish that a stay is necessary. The inquiry remains tied to the purpose of the stay power: whether interim relief is required to make the Court’s appellate jurisdiction effective. Here, the Court considered that continued custody did not prevent the appeal or make success practically useless ([21]-[23]).

The judgment also demonstrates that prospects of success and entitlement to interim relief are distinct considerations. KMD’s reasonable prospects were recognised ([22]), yet the stay was refused because the Court found it unnecessary to preserve effective appellate relief and because the requested release depended on a disputed factual question and an order whose basis and terms had been criticised by the NTCCA ([23]-[25]).

The distinction Gleeson J drew from an appeal against a custodial sentence is significant but should be read narrowly. The Court contrasted this supervision-order proceeding with a case where most or all of a fixed sentence might be served before the appeal is decided, potentially rendering the appeal nugatory ([23]). The judgment does not state that detention under a supervision order can never justify a stay. Its reasoning turns on the nature of this appeal, the continuing capacity for appellate relief, the existing findings and the unresolved risk issue.

Nor did the decision finally determine the validity of either supervision order. The appeal was expedited, and the stay decision addressed only whether KMD should be released while that appeal was pending. The NTCCA’s findings were treated as extant for the purpose of deciding interim relief, not as findings affirmed by Gleeson J after determination of the appeal ([24]-[27]).

Key passages with plain-English translation

At [21], Gleeson J stated that a stay necessary “to preserve the subject matter of the litigation” or “to avoid practical difficulties” in granting relief falls within the Court’s power. In plain English, interim orders may be used to ensure that the Court can still provide meaningful relief after deciding an appeal. The power is instrumental: the stay must serve the effective exercise of appellate jurisdiction.

Also at [21], the judgment says that KMD did not need to demonstrate exceptional circumstances after special leave was granted, but that the “deprivation of liberty” alone was not enough. In plain English, the Court did not apply an exceptional-circumstances threshold, but still required a reason connected to the need for an effective appeal. The gravity of custody was acknowledged rather than treated as conclusive.

At [22], Gleeson J accepted that KMD had “reasonable prospects of success” but noted a possible dispute about whether she should be released on the existing NCSO terms if she ultimately succeeded. One example was that a condition requiring her to live at a particular address with two family members could no longer be complied with because the residence had been put to another purpose. This shows the Court’s concern that success on the appeal would not necessarily mean that the former order could simply operate unchanged.

At [23], the Court said KMD’s ability to prosecute the appeal and obtain the benefits of a successful appeal was unaffected by whether she remained in custody. In plain English, custody did not prevent the Court from hearing the case or giving meaningful relief later. The Court also contrasted this case with an appeal in which a fixed sentence might largely expire before the appeal was decided.

At [24]-[25], the Court referred to the NTCCA’s findings about public risk and the absence of specified monitoring and counselling, then observed that it was not in a position to resolve the parties’ public-safety dispute. In plain English, the stay application was not a forum for deciding the disputed risk evidence or for treating the former NCSO as an uncomplicated basis for immediate release.

What fact patterns trigger this precedent

The decision is most directly relevant to applications for a stay pending an appeal in the High Court, particularly where the applicant has already obtained special leave. It provides a structured way to understand the questions Gleeson J considered: what purpose would the stay serve, would the appeal remain effective without it, and would refusing interim relief create practical obstacles to later relief? ([21]-[23]).

It is also relevant where an applicant relies heavily on the serious personal consequences of remaining subject to an order. The judgment recognises that deprivation of liberty is inherently serious but explains that this factor alone does not establish the necessity of a stay ([21]). Other circumstances may still matter, but the court’s analysis must connect them to the effective exercise of appellate jurisdiction.

A further relevant pattern arises where the practical relief sought depends on reinstating or operating an earlier order whose basis or conditions have been questioned by an intermediate appellate court. In KMD, the NTCCA’s findings remained extant and concerned both the risk conclusion and the adequacy of the NCSO’s monitoring and counselling terms ([24]). The High Court considered that circumstance when deciding whether it had an appropriate basis to order release on those terms.

The case also bears on applications where the interim court is asked to decide a factual dispute that is central to the requested relief. Here, the parties disagreed about public-safety risk, and Gleeson J considered that the High Court could not resolve that issue on the stay application ([25]). The decision does not establish that factual disputes always prevent a stay. It shows the importance, in this particular application, of the disputed issue to the requested release order.

Finally, the comparison with sentence appeals may be relevant where delay risks consuming the practical benefit of an appeal. The Court’s contrast was with a fixed custodial sentence whose substantial portion could be served before appeal determination ([23]). It did not equate that situation with every form of detention or supervision, and it did not rule out a stay in other cases involving supervision orders.

How later courts have treated it

The supplied judgment contains no decisions issued after 18 October 2024 discussing or applying KMD v CEO. On the material available here, it is not possible to describe subsequent treatment, whether the decision has been followed, distinguished or otherwise considered, or whether later courts have developed its reasoning.

The judgment itself identifies the authorities it drew on for the stay principles. These include United Mexican States v Cabal, Re Moore; Ex parte Pillar, Smith v New South Wales Bar Association, and other cases listed in the footnotes. The references support the propositions stated in Gleeson J’s reasons, but the judgment does not provide a survey of subsequent case law ([21], [24]). Any account of later treatment would require later judgments or legal sources not included in the supplied text.

Still-open questions

The substantive appeal remained unresolved in this judgment. One open question was whether the NTCCA’s findings would be challenged on appeal. Gleeson J said it was unclear from the proposed notice of appeal whether those findings would be in issue ([24]). The judgment therefore does not decide whether those findings were correct or what consequences would follow from success on the appeal.

Another open question concerned the terms of any future non-custodial order. Gleeson J noted that the previous residence condition could no longer be complied with because the address had been put to a different purpose ([22]). The judgment does not decide what replacement conditions might be appropriate, or whether a revised order could address the concerns identified by the NTCCA.

The public-safety question also remained unresolved. KMD relied on her conduct while living in the community under the NCSO; the first respondent opposed release; and the NTCCA had made findings concerning risk. Gleeson J did not determine that factual issue on the stay application ([24]-[25]). The decision should therefore not be read as a final assessment of KMD’s risk or as a conclusion about the correct terms of any supervision order.

More broadly, the judgment does not specify a comprehensive test for every stay application involving detention under a supervision regime. It applies the necessity principle to the particular appeal and explains why continued custody would not, in this instance, prevent effective appellate relief. Questions about other statutory schemes, different order terms, materially different appeal timelines or evidence, and other forms of practical prejudice are not answered by the supplied reasons.

This is general legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Before acting on or relying on this analysis, have a qualified Australian lawyer check it.

The Chief Executive Officer Department of Health v KMD [2024] NTCCA 8 at [194]-[195]. ↩