The public humiliation of being labelled 'mentally impaired' has possibly contributed to Suzie Milgate's decision to abandon a legal process that would have provided some lenience on her matter, The Mango Inquirer surmises.
Milgate appeared before Judge Stephen Geary today under a mental health diversion listing on charges of 'Aggravated Assault' and 'Use Carriage Service To Harass', relating to a viral video involving former Chief Minister Natasha Fyles at Nightcliff markets last year.
Prosecutor Deborah Mandie addressed the court: "Your honour, in the last occasion this matter was in the general list and Judge Morris ordered a section 77 preliminary report.
"I've since received some correspondence that indicates from a lawyer who gave some advice to Ms Milgate and was told to instruct me along these lines, that Ms Milgate now opposes the attaining of that report.
"I was told that the matter could potentially return to the general list and the sentencing indication would be sort. However, I had a brief discussion with Ms Milgate and that may no longer be her position."
Representing herself in court, a softly-spoken Milgate said she wanted to read out a letter: "I do not want to be assessed and did not consent to the order being made as I had walked out and was not present.
"I am appearing on 25th July 2024 to bring this to the judge's attention, that I did not apply, nor consent, to the section 77 report.
"The order was made in my absence, and I wish for the court to recall it or cancel it.
"I am experiencing significant stress and PTSD, but I am not mentally impaired, and I do not wish to be treated or dealt with or sentenced by a judge sitting in a mental health list."
Judge Geary took a moment to explain the current circumstances: "The court has the power to make that order.
"I think the preliminary report. That will determine that will...
Milgate: "No, so I've got an affidavit and I think I want to recuse Judge Morris off my case due to impartiality and conflict of interest."
A barely audible discussion on judge allocation proceeded.
Judge to prosecution: "Did this case have a hearing date?"
Prosecution: "Your honour, it did have one, which was July this year."
Judge: "And that was vacated."
Prosecution: "It was vacated because Ms Milgate raised the question of fitness and mental impairment.
Milgate: "No I didn't."
Prosecution: "Excuse me."
Milgate: "No I didn't. No I didn't.
Prosecution: "I was there on both occasions. Ms Milgate raised the issue, perhaps not under..."
Inaudible interruptions by Milgate.
Prosecution: "Please do not interrupt me."
Milgate: "Well don't twist the words."
Prosecution: "When she represented to the court producing many many documents from psychological; from psychologists, raising the matter, perhaps not understanding the implications of which, but raising the matter of fitness and mental impairment, as a result.."
Milgate: "It wasn't, it wasn't, not true."
Prosecution: "As a result, Judge Morris made the order she made. Further, she was told that a warrant would be issued if she left the court, but she left the court anyway.
"That's what happened on the last occasion.
"The hearing was listed a long time ago. It is going to happen unless there is any basis for pursing fitness questions, otherwise the crown will be seeking a hearing date.
Judge: "If I understand correctly, the order was made right after you left?"
Milgate: "Yeah."
Judge: "Sometimes things happen, that you don't wish to happen. If you're not there, you're not able to put your view across.
"I'm not going to revoke the order. I think it should be carried out. [inaudible] then the report will say so.
"Sometimes these reports are very helpful.
Milgate: "Your honour, I do not consent. And because it's..."
Judge: "We'll sort it out for you."
Milgate: "It's a conflict. It's a conflict."
Judge: "If it assists you, I defer that ok? I..[inaudible] I support the order.."
Milgate enters into discussion that is barely audible about court recording.
Milgate: "I am not unfit and not mentally impaired, yet I'm stressed and from PTSD from my husband having a stroke and the roll out of the vaccines where everyone's just [inaudible]."
Further barely audible discussions occurred between the judge and Milgate's understanding of what a sentencing indication was.
Prosecution: "Your honour, that has never occurred. The crown is supportive if the matter returns to the general lists to obtain a sentencing indication."
The judge brought up legal advice for Milgate from sworn counsel, but she advised she had no income. The option of legal aid was presented by the judge as well.
The prosecution advised the judge Ms Roussos from Roussos and Associates had written to her on a pro-bono basis for Milgate, but was not formally representing her.
After a brief break, the court returned and the judge addressed the issue of the section 77 report again, reading from earlier documentation provided by Milgate.
Judge: "Ms Milgate requested the assistance of [name] on the impacts of her mental health condition on her ability to prepare [inaudible] for legal proceedings. And if relevant, her mental state at the time of the alleged crime.
"Now that's effectively what a preliminary section 77 report is."
Milgate: "Yeah, no, because [inaudible] independent, because it was stress and PTSD. It wasn't like they are making it out.
Judge: "Do you see any harm in participating in a preliminary report?"
Milgate: "Yes I do."
Judge: "You won't participate in it?"
Milgate: "I do not consent to it."
Judge: "What I sort of want to know is, whether you'll participate. I have got some material here to suggest they tried to contact you, but you were not getting back to them."
A very low-talking inaudible response from Milgate where the NT government was brought up, indicating her clear mistrust and concern on the independence of the judicial/mental health processes in the section 77.
The judge said he was going to abate the order, and put it on the matter on the general listing, offering Milgate another break to go out on her phone and seek advice from whomever she was ringing.
When the matter was brought up again for the third time this morning, the judge confirmed Milgate's wishes, before providing potential hearing dates including October.
It might just be The Mango Inquirer's intuition, but Milgate sounded like she was judge-shopping, directly asking Judge Geary if he would be on.
I couldn't see it from across the court room, but it sounded like it left him a little red-faced.
A quick discussion on how the allocation of judges for dates then proceeded, before an explanation on how sentencing indications worked.
Milgate returns on Monday 30th July for a sentencing indication. It's where you're given an idea of what the punishment might look like if you pleaded guilty.
We are The Mango Inquirer.
