Attorney-General for the State of South Australia v Coulter [No 2] - [2019] SASC 25

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal: Application)
ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA v COULTER [NO 2]
[2019] SASC 25
Judgment of The Honourable Justice Hinton
28 February 2019
CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - SENTENCING ORDERS - ORDERS AND DECLARATIONS RELATING TO SERIOUS OR VIOLENT OFFENDERS OR DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDERS - GENERALLY
CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - POST-CUSTODIAL ORDERS - OTHER TYPES OF POST-CUSTODIAL ORDERS
Pursuant to s 7 of the Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA) the Attorney-General (SA) made an application for an extended supervision order in relation to Timothy Coulter. Mr Coulter conceded that he is a high risk offender within the meaning of that Act and that he poses an appreciable risk to the safety of the community if not supervised under an extended supervision order. He also conceded that the conditions contained in a draft order the Attorney-General provided to the Court were appropriate but objected to the duration of the proposed order. The Attorney-General submitted that the order should be of two years duration, whereas Mr Coulter submitted that the order only be for a further 15 months in light of the fact that he has been subject to an interim supervision order since June 2018.
Held, allowing the application, the duration of the extended supervision order is to be for a period of two years commencing on 28 February 2019.
Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA) ss 7, 9, 12(1), 15, referred to.
Attorney-General (SA) v Coulter [2018] SASC 177; Police v Sullivan; Attorney-General (SA) v Sullivan [2018] SASC 11, considered.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA v COULTER [NO 2]
[2019] SASC 25
Criminal
HINTON J:
Introduction

Pursuant to s 7 of the Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA) (the Act) the Attorney-General has applied for an extended supervision order in relation to Timothy Coulter. Mr Coulter concedes that he is a high risk offender within the meaning of the Act and that the evidence adduced by the Attorney-General establishes that he poses an appreciable risk to the safety of the community if not supervised pursuant to an extended supervision order. He further concedes that the conditions contained in a draft order provided to the Court are appropriate. His objection is to the duration of the proposed order. The Attorney-General submits that the safety of the community requires that the order be of two years duration from today. Mr Coulter, on the other hand, contends that the order should only be for a further 15 months approximately, he having already been subject to an interim supervision order for over eight months.
I grant the application and order that Mr Coulter be subject to an extended supervision order containing the conditions set out later in these reasons for a period of two years commencing from the date of this judgment. My reasons follow.
Background
Mr Coulter is turning 33. He is the youngest of three children. His father died in a car accident when he was very young. Mr Coulter was present in the car at the time and recalls having to wait for an extended period for help.
Mr Coulter reports enjoying a good relationship with his mother who continues to be supportive of him. He also enjoys a good relationship with his brother and sister.
Mr Coulter attended a number of schools including attending primary school at Nairne and the Smithfield Plains High School. In year 10 he transferred to the Netley Learning Centre which he then attended for the best part of a year before moving to the Beafield Learning Centre. I understand the Beafield Learning Centre to be a facility that specialises in dealing with children with behavioural issues. In this connection I note that Mr Coulter was diagnosed as having attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.
Around the time of his leaving school Mr Coulter commenced abusing drink and drugs.
After leaving school Mr Coulter managed to obtain a number of unskilled jobs for relatively short periods. He has not worked since 2004.
Mr Coulter first came into contact with the criminal justice system in 2000. His antecedents stretch to almost five pages. He has numerous convictions for property and dishonesty offences. He has frequently breached bail agreements, bonds and community service orders. Of particular importance to the current proceedings is Mr Coulter’s history of sexual offending. I summarise that offending as follows:
i.On 30 January 2018 Mr Coulter was sentenced in the District Court to imprisonment for two years and six months for the offences of unlawful sexual intercourse and administering a drug to a child. A non-parole period of two years was fixed. The head sentence and non-parole period were backdated to 20 December 2015 being the date on which Mr Coulter was taken into custody.
The offending occurred in 2015 when Mr Coulter was in a relationship with a 16-year-old female. The unlawful sexual intercourse was comprised of an act of fellatio. Subsequently, Mr Coulter squirted methylamphetamine into the 16-year-old’s mouth.
ii.In July 2014 Mr Coulter was sentenced in the Magistrates Court for a number of offences in addition to being dealt with for breaching a good behaviour bond. The offences to which he pleaded guilty included one count of indecent assault. The Magistrate summarised the circumstances of the indecent assault as follows:
… on 12 March 2013 a Ms K parked her motor vehicle at the Gawler Railway Station, intending to take a train. You approached her, engaged her in conversation, asking her for money. She gave you $3.00. You then followed her onto the train and sat opposite her. You asked her her name and you told her that yours was ‘Timmy’. You then lent forward and placed both hands on her knees and began to move your hands up under her skirt until you touched her underwear. Ms K was in shock and not knowing what to do. You repeated this movement for about two minutes. You then asked to kiss her and she said ‘No’. You asked her the colour of her underwear and she did not reply. When she did not reply, you lifted up her skirt. You then started kissing her neck and her chest. She was leaning back in her seat, trying to get away. You kissed her again. Ms K said that she had to get off at the next stop. You both got off the train. She then got back onto the train, leaving you on the platform. I understand from your lawyer that your plea is entered on the basis that you were recklessly indifferent as to the issue as to whether or not Ms K was consenting, that means to say that you turned your mind [to] the issue of whether or not she was consenting and decided to proceed irrespective of whether she was.
The Magistrate sentenced Mr Coulter to imprisonment for eight months reduced from 10 months on account of his plea. The sentence was partially suspended. The Magistrate also recorded:
I have also received and read the report of Dr Mark Holmes, psychologist. He concludes that you suffer from no psychiatric disorder but you have an immature understanding of appropriate sexual behaviour. He concluded that you fulfilled the criteria for a condition known as ‘Frotteurism’. That is a behaviour typically seen in individuals with concerns about sexual performance and attractiveness. This disorder involves a degree of fantasy that the act of touching will lead to the recipient, in this case a female, becoming receptive to sexual activity. This represents an elevation of overall risk of what Mr Holmes describes as ‘hands on offences’ in the future. This behaviour heightens sexual arousal from contact with a non-consenting person. It leads to individuals such as you, seeking out locations for such behaviour and he cites instances of public transport. The behaviour goes in cycles, sometimes associated with lowered mood. Mr Holmes points to the fact that you have been unable to get a job and maintain relationships, as instances of your lowered mood on the occasion of this offending. He thought you would gain considerable benefit from referral to the Sexual Behaviour Clinic and to a clinical psychologist. With such treatment in place, he thought you would be at a low to moderate risk of re-offending. Without such treatment, he thought you would be at a moderate to moderately high risk of re-offending.
iii.In September 2006 Mr Coulter was sentenced for three counts of indecent assault. One of those counts occurred on 8 April 2005 and the other two on 20 September 2005. The victim of the April 2005 offence was a 14-year-old girl. The offending occurred on a train as it travelled from North Adelaide to Dry Creek. Mr Coulter touched the victim on the hand saying, “You’ve got nice tits. I’d like to feel them one day”. He then gestured to his genital area before saying, “Okay, I’ll feel them with this”. On 20 September 2005 Mr Coulter was again travelling on a train this time travelling from Adelaide to Gawler. A 13-year-old girl was also aboard. He grabbed her on the buttocks. Later, during the same journey, he approached a second 13-year-old girl and grabbed her on the left breast.
The effect of the sentence imposed on 30 January 2018 was that Mr Coulter was eligible for release on parole as of 19 December 2017. On 16 April 2018 the Parole Board determined that it was not prepared to authorise Mr Coulter’s release. The Board said:
On 9 March 2018, Coulter was interviewed for the purpose of assessment for participation in the Sexual Behaviour Clinic program. The assessment was:-
Based on an analysis of his static and dynamic risk factors related to sexual offending, Mr Coulter was estimated to be at VERY HIGH RISK of sexual reoffending should he not receive treatment. He was therefore found to be suitable for involvement in the Sexual Behaviour Clinic for offenders with low cognitive functioning (SBC-me). However, it was noted that Mr Coulter does not have sufficient time remaining on his sentence and parole for completion of this program.
Presently, Coulter has no post-release accommodation planned. He has little if any family or other support. He has a history of poor compliance with supervision orders which he himself attributes to his abuse of illicit drugs. A Pre-Release Report noted that Coulter appeared to put little thought into how he would constructively use his time.
However, even if appropriate accommodation and supports could be put into place, it appears unlikely that Coulter would obtain any appropriate intervention to address his very high risk of sexual reoffending prior to the expiration of his sentence on 19 June 2018.
[emphasis in original]
Mr Coulter has been the subject of a number of assessments by Correctional Services and the Parole Board. I do not propose to go through the assessments provided to the Court. Much of what they contain is little different to the observations and conclusions of Mr Reid and Drs Raeside and Ferris to which reference is made in some detail below. In fact, the reports prepared in the first half of 2018 for the Parole Board and by Corrections are dependent to some extent upon the reports of Dr Raeside and Mr Reid.
The Attorney-General instituted these proceedings on 1 June 2018. As at that time Mr Coulter was in prison serving the sentence imposed on 30 January 2018. As a consequence of his having committed the offence of unlawful sexual intercourse Mr Coulter is a serious sexual offender and a high risk offender within the meaning of the Act.
On 12 June 2018 Mr Coulter was sentenced for three offences committed contrary to the Child Sex Offenders Registration Act 2006 (SA). The sentencing Magistrate said:
The three offences all occurred on 19 January 2015. Count 3 relates to a person, who I think I can probably describe as either a friend of acquaintance of the defendant, who had a daughter on 10 February 2015. The defendant failed to report that he had contact with her and her mother from that time onwards.
Counts 8 and 9 relate to a friendship that the defendant had again with, in this instance, a family group including a child. The defendant attended the family home, always if the child was present. It was in company of an adult but that constitutes the offending …
In light of the sentence imposed on 30 January 2018, the Magistrate decided that it would be sufficient to dispose of this offending by ordering that Mr Coulter enter into a bond to be of good behaviour for a period of 12 months.
On 13 June 2018, pursuant to s 9 of the Act, the Chief Justice made the interim supervision order against Mr Coulter to which brief reference has been made above, after being advised that Mr Coulter was due to be released on parole on 19 June 2018. The Chief Justice also made an order directing that one or more legally qualified medical practitioners examine Mr Coulter and report on the likelihood that he would commit a further serious sexual offence. In compliance with that order the Court has received a report from Dr Megan Ferris, a forensic consultant psychiatrist. As mentioned, I deal with that report in some detail below.
On 20 June 2018 the Community Corrections Officer responsible for supervising Mr Coulter under the interim supervision order referred Mr Coulter to Owenia House for the purposes of him being assessed for inclusion in the Sexual Behaviour Clinic program for men with lower cognitive function (the SBC-Me program). That program provides a range of learning objectives including identification and management of potential risk factors, social skill development and goal setting and planning.
On 2 July 2018 Mr Coulter was assessed as being suitable to take part in the SBC-Me program. He commenced the program on 17 July 2018.
On 4 September 2018 Mr Coulter was taken back into custody on a warrant issued by the Parole Board under s 15 of the Act for committing an offence contrary to condition 2.1 of the interim supervision order made by the Chief Justice on 13 June 2018. The offence, which Mr Coulter pleaded guilty to on 19 September 2018, was that of failing to comply with reporting obligations under the Child Sex Offenders Registration Act 2006 (SA). More particularly, Mr Coulter had failed to advise the police of a Facebook account that he kept. The Facebook page was created on 19 June 2018. It is concerning that on 26 June 2018 Mr Coulter signed a document stating that he did not have a social media account. That said, it is submitted that Mr Coulter did not understand that a Facebook account is a social media account.
On 24 September 2018 Mr Coulter was dealt with by the Magistrates Court for the June 2018 breach of his reporting requirements. He was convicted without any further penalty being imposed. The June 2018 offence was committed in breach of the bond that Mr Coulter entered on 12 June 2018. The police applied for the enforcement of the bond. The Magistrate determined that no further action was required.
The Parole Board subsequently determined to release Mr Coulter after varying the interim supervision order to include a requirement that he be subject to intensive supervision including electronic monitoring. Mr Coulter was released into the community on 24 September 2018.
On 7 November 2018 the Chief Justice refused to amend the interim supervision order to remove the electronic monitoring conditions imposed by the Parole Board.[1]
[1] Attorney-General (SA) v Coulter [2018] SASC 177.
Between the time of his release in June 2018 and being returned to custody on 4 September 2018 Mr Coulter had attended seven sessions as part of the SBC-Me program, was in receipt of individual treatment with a psychologist, had commenced alcohol and drug counselling, and had attended all twice-weekly supervision sessions with his Community Corrections Officer.
After his release on 24 September 2018, Mr Coulter resumed participation in the SBC-Me program and resumed drug and alcohol counselling. His treating psychologist reports:
… the Owenia House case notes indicated that Mr Coulter arrives punctually for all group and individual appointments. He is generally respectful to other participants and facilitators in his interactions. Mr Coulter frequently engages well in the content of the sessions and offers many relevant discussion points, however occasionally requires reminders to slow down and not rush through tasks. Mr Coulter also appears to have a sound understanding of many of the concepts discussed in session. He has reported a keen desire to implement strategies discussed in session to his general environment.
The facilitators have noted that Mr Coulter continues to experience some difficulty with impulsivity and emotional regulation however this will continue to be addressed in group.
It is anticipated that Mr Coulter will complete the SBC-Me program in approximately October/November of this year. Thereafter, a post-treatment report will be prepared by Owenia House for Corrections bringing Owenia House’s involvement with Mr Coulter to an end.
As at 14 January 2019 Corrections advises that Mr Coulter has complied with the conditions of the interim supervision order. When given a pass to leave his home he has not deviated, he has attended Owenia House as scheduled, breath and urine tests for substance abuse have all produced negative results, he has attended all supervision appointments on time, has attended community service work when required and makes contact with his Community Corrections Officer if he requires passes that he has omitted from his timetable. Due to his progress, Corrections no longer considers that electronic monitoring and home detention are necessary, but suggests that a curfew prohibiting Mr Coulter from being away from his home between the hours of 9 pm and 6 am be substituted.
Looking to the future Corrections advises:
… Mr Coulter stated that he will contact Ms Morrell, Psychologist and engage with her after the Owenia House program has been completed. Reportedly he is entitled to 10 sessions per year with the psychologist and this service can continue until it is deemed no longer necessary by the Psychologist. Owenia House program facilitators prepare a post treatment report, which includes an analysis of the outcome of Mr Coulter’s engagement and achievements at SBC-Me program. The post-treatment report is sent to Mr Coulter’s supervising community corrections officer. Mr Coulter advised that he will continue to attend at Uniting Communities, New Roads program for drug and alcohol counselling. Mr Coulter informed that Uniting Communities is linked with the RecLink program which involves prosocial activities such as kayaking and bowling and he will continue to attend that program. He stated that when his current exemption from work has ended, he intends to ask Centrelink to link him with Job Prospects to provide assistance to undertake literacy and numeracy training. Mr Coulter stated that after completing the literacy and numeracy training his intention is to obtain his Learner’s licence to learn how to drive a car. He informed that he would also like to obtain employment. Mr Coulter stated that he realises this may be difficult, given he has been unemployed for a number of years. He has agreed to obtain the services of a financial counsellor from OARS to develop budgeting skills as was discussed during supervision.
Department for Correctional Services will monitor Mr Coulter’s compliance with his Court ordered obligations through twice weekly supervision, random breath and urinalysis tests and his engagement with external service providers. Mr Coulter’s community corrections officer, Mr Colin Mercer will also make assessments in respect to whether Mr Coulter requires extra supports to enable him [Mr Coulter] to reside in the community as a law abiding citizen.

I was advised that Mr Coulter had an appointment to see Ms Morrell on 21 February 2019.
As at today’s date I understand that Mr Coulter has no current matters pending in any of the State’s criminal courts.
The expert opinions
As mentioned Dr Ferris, a forensic consultant psychiatrist with the South Australian Forensic Mental Health Service, prepared a report for the purposes of the Attorney-General’s application. Dr Ferris interviewed Mr Coulter in September 2018. She did not consider Mr Coulter to be presenting with any acute mental health symptoms. She determined that he satisfied the criteria for a diagnosis of his having an anti-social personality disorder, marijuana dependence syndrome and alcohol dependence syndrome. She added that Mr Coulter did not have an intellectual disability but that his level of intelligence was in the low-average range and he had a degree of frontal lobe disinhibition and problems with executive functioning.
In the course of being interviewed by Dr Ferris Mr Coulter spoke at length about his sexual offending. He stated that on all occasions he was “off his face” on drugs and alcohol. Dr Ferris reported that he minimised much of his offending stating that he “copied” his friend by “slapping a girl on the arse” and that “I was an idiot and didn’t know what I was doing”. Dr Ferris also reported that Mr Coulter justified and minimised his involvement in the 2006 offending and strongly denied any ongoing thoughts of similar offending. Further, Mr Coulter denied any fantasies about or interest in younger girls and stated that he wanted a relationship with an older female in her 20s. Lastly, he revealed that he intermittently used porn, but denied any paraphilic themes.
Dr Ferris could detect no sign of any mood disturbance, anxiety, irritability or arousal during the course of her interview with Mr Coulter. She noted, however, that he minimised his offending and displayed a lack of understanding of the severity of his previous sexual offending and limited insight and understanding into his current circumstances.
Dr Ferris observed that in relation to Mr Coulter’s sexual offending between 2006 and 2018 the victim was in each case a stranger, was a female under the age of 17 on four occasions, and a victim known to him on the last occasion. On all occasions Mr Coulter was well aware of the age of the victims and in 2005 and 2013 sought them out on public transport or related areas in a very brash and open manner. She noted that Mr Coulter did not report any deviant interests or any paraphilia and denied a sexual interest in children. She considered that his sexual offending was not diverse in nature and did not involve the use of force or the perpetration of physical injury to the victim.
Dr Ferris considered Mr Coulter’s static criminogenic factors. She said:
Mr Coulter presents with many static risk factors that influence his risk of recidivism. He is noted to be a young male, with a longstanding history of forensic offending since youth. His sexual offending started at a young age. He has some intellectual impairment and difficulties with frontal lobe functioning and executive functioning. This is going to lead him to be at a higher risk of impulsive decision making and difficulty judging situations put to him. He has limited education history, limited social contacts and has repetitively struggled to find ongoing permanent accommodation.
Dr Ferris goes on to note that a contributing factor to Mr Coulter’s offending is his longstanding illicit substance and alcohol abuse. Mr Coulter reported that he was intoxicated during all sexual offending and unless he was incarcerated had never willingly abstained from marijuana and alcohol.
In bringing her report to a close Dr Ferris expressed the opinion that Mr Coulter answered the statutory description of a serious sexual offender. His risk factor profile included the static factors to which reference has already been made in addition to his having antisocial attitudes, repeated similar offending profiles, poor emotional intelligence and intellectual difficulties, limited coping strategies to deal with stress and limited social support. In considering his dynamic risk factors Dr Ferris referred again to the role that Mr Coulter’s drug and alcohol abuse played in his offending. In Dr Ferris’ opinion, Mr Coulter posed a moderate risk of committing a further serious sexual offence. She added that unless he was closely supervised he would in all likelihood resume using alcohol and illicit substances which would increase his risk of offending. Dr Ferris concluded her report suggesting:
Suggestions for further lowering his risk of recidivism should primarily focus on his drug and alcohol dependence and close supervision of his abstinence. His ongoing involvement with Drug and Alcohol counselling is going to be paramount. He would strongly benefit from ongoing involvement in the SBC Me programme at Owenia House, which could focus primarily on his cognitive distortions, social skills training, sexual health education and behavioural interactions. Psychosocial treatments including day planning to try and include more pro-social activities could include volunteer work, exercise and day trips.
I have also had regard to a report dated 28 September 2017 prepared by Dr Craig Raeside, a forensic psychiatrist. That report was prepared for use in the course of sentencing submissions in the District Court in January 2018. Like Dr Ferris, Dr Raeside was unable to find any evidence that Mr Coulter suffered a psychotic disorder. He considered that Mr Coulter had developed post-traumatic stress disorder following upon his being sexually assaulted whilst in custody in 2015, but the symptoms were not then interfering with Mr Coulter’s functioning.
Dr Raeside was also of the opinion that Mr Coulter had an underlying antisocial personality disorder which, together with his borderline low intellectual functioning, resulted in him having a generally immature outlook on life, and his sexual preferences in particular. Dr Raeside said:
Notwithstanding his comment about seeking a relationship with an older woman following his eventual release … [into] … the community, it is apparent that he is primarily attracted to older teenage girls, probably from their mid-teens, likely feeling more threatened emotionally by older more mature women.
Dr Raeside continued:
It is clearly concerning that notwithstanding previous convictions he has not sought to avoid situations occurring again and, even when aware of the illegality of his actions, has continued nevertheless. It is also likely that he may have difficulty accurately determining the age (within a year or two) of his sexual partners. Nevertheless, the overall impression is he does not particularly care.
Dr Raeside was of the opinion that Mr Coulter did not qualify for a diagnosis of paedophilia because he possessed a heterosexual attraction to post-pubescent females.
As mentioned above, Dr Raeside considered Mr Coulter’s sexual interest in older teenage girls consistent with Mr Coulter’s maturity level. Dr Raeside did not believe Mr Coulter had an intellectual disability but his borderline low intellectual capacity was likely to aggravate the problems he experienced with his social skills which when added to his underlying antisocial personality disorder would affect his overall functioning. He considered Mr Coulter limited in his ability to make mature and considered judgments. Further, Mr Coulter’s impulsivity was likely a function of his underlying attention deficit hyperactivity disorder coupled with his antisocial personality disorder. The impact of these conditions would be aggravated by alcohol and illicit drug abuse, particularly amphetamines.
Dr Raeside said:
Mr Coulter would benefit from a general rehabilitation program, assisting him with education, employment strategies, and other programs aimed to improve his social skills. He appears to have benefited from the programs already received in custody. He also would benefit from participation in a drug and alcohol rehabilitation program aimed at relapse prevention so that he does not resort to illicit drug use, particularly at times of stress. Such drug abuse only further aggravates his underlying vulnerabilities, decreasing his impulse control, and adversely affecting his judgment.
Further, even though I do not believe Mr Coulter has a diagnosis of paedophilia, I would recommend that he participate in a sexual offender program, whether in custody or out. The primary focus should be to assist him to understand better the inappropriateness, including the illegality, of sexual behaviour with older teenage girls, some of whom are underage. Increased victim awareness, and better understanding his own issues would be beneficial in this area, obviously aimed at reducing his risk of recidivism. It is likely that part of the program should focus on issues of consent, to help him understand that notwithstanding a female partner “consensually” engages in a sexual relationship with him, that he should not do so if she is underage. As such, developing strategies to feel comfortable in socialising appropriately with older females would be useful.
He added:
Unfortunately, the Antisocial Personality Disorder is unlikely to respond to any specific intervention, but Mr Coulter could be assisted to look at more adaptive ways of dealing with stress than resorting to offending behaviour more generally. As such, “his lack of care” in relation to some of his offending could be assisted in this regard.
I have also had regard to Mr Reid’s report dated 9 January 2018 to which some reference has been made earlier in these reasons.
Like Dr Raeside, Mr Reid prepared his report for the purposes of sentencing submissions in relation to Mr Coulter’s 2015 offending. Importantly, Mr Reid’s testing and assessment of Mr Coulter’s intellectual functioning revealed that he was in the bottom of the low-average range of intelligence but did not have an intellectual disability. Mr Reid remarked that although it was not always possible, nor valid to apply a “mental age” to such assessments, the assessment as conducted would suggest that Mr Coulter’s mental age was that of a mid-teenager. He added that Mr Coulter’s ability to think in an abstract manner and his ability to comprehend day-to-day situations generally were toward the upper-end of the low-average range. Further, Mr Coulter being prone to impulsivity and having a degree of frontal lobe disinhibition with a tendency to respond immediately to the most salient or obvious stimulus, would result in him having difficulty in reaching any form of reasoned conclusion but rather see him respond early in any situation to the most salient information presented. That is to say, Mr Coulter would have difficulty in weighing up options and making calculated decisions unless in a very overlearned form.
Mr Reid agreed with Dr Raeside’s view that a more broad-based rehabilitation program would assist Mr Coulter. In addition to suggesting that Mr Coulter might benefit from medication being prescribed for adult attention deficit disorder, he expressed the opinion that:
At a more practical skills level, Mr. Coulter would benefit from practical skill training to assist him to live independently. I believe he would be capable of understanding a sexual education treatment course and I am aware that these can be modified slightly to suit people with below average intellectual levels.
I also believe that he requires a specific treatment programme to prevent him returning to the use of illicit or recreational drugs and I would be hopeful that with the use of prescribed dexamphetamine, his desire to use these more inappropriate and illicit substances may be lessened. Regardless of this, his illicit drug use does need to be curtailed to reduce any potential form of recidivism.
With the combination of a below average IQ and the features of Adult ADD [Attention Deficit Disorder], I believe Mr. Coulter would struggle to live independently, at least without some forms of support. He will benefit from external structure and routine applied to his lifestyle and I believe he would require someone to formally assist him in setting up a structured routine approach to living independently or at least semi-independently. Similarly, any employment he undertakes is likely to succeed only if this is in a structured and routine context, which is often the case with unskilled and even semi-skilled jobs.
Consideration
The Attorney-General proposes that an extended supervision order be made of two years duration having the following conditions:
1.   The respondent is to be subject to an extended supervision order for a period of 2 years from the date of this order.
2.   The Court orders that the following conditions apply, pursuant to ss 10(1)(a)–(e) and 10(2) of the HRO Act:
2.1that the respondent not commit any offence;
2.2that the respondent is prohibited from possessing a firearm or ammunition (both within the meaning of the Firearms Act 2015 (SA)) or any part of a firearm;
2.3the respondent is prohibited from possessing an offensive weapon unless the Supreme Court permits the person to possess such a weapon and the person complies with the terms and conditions of the permission;
2.4that the respondent will:
2.4.1be under the supervision of a Community Corrections Officer;
2.4.2obey the reasonable directions of that Officer;
2.4.3submit to tests (including tests without notice) for gunshot residue, as the Community Corrections Officer may reasonably require;
3.   The respondent will reside at the premises approved by his Community Corrections Officer and the respondent will not change his place of residence without the prior written permission of his Community Corrections Officer;
4.   The respondent will not depart from or attempt to depart from the State of South Australia without obtaining the written approval of the Parole Board at least seven (7) days prior to travel;
5.   The respondent will not leave his approved place of residence between the hours of 2100 (9:00 pm) and 0600 (6:00 am) for the duration of the order or for such period as determined by the Parole Board save and except in the case of a medical emergency or with the prior written permission of the Community Corrections Officer;
6.   In relation to condition 5, the respondent will present himself to a Police Officer, a Community Corrections Officer or such person as is authorised to conduct a curfew check at his front door on request unless absent for medical emergencies or with prior written permission;
7.   The respondent will not consume alcohol;
8.   The respondent will not enter or remain upon any licensed premises, as defined in the Liquor Licensing Act 1997 (SA), without the prior approval of his Community Corrections Officer;
9.   The respondent will not use, possess or administer any illegal or prescription drug except in accordance with the directions of a legally qualified medical practitioner;
10.   The respondent will advise his Community Corrections Officer of any drug that has been prescribed to him by a legally qualified medical practitioner;
11.   The respondent will present for drug and alcohol testing (including tests without notice) as and where directed by his Community Corrections Officer, or the Parole Board, and will do all things and sign all such forms as may be necessary to enable drug and alcohol testing to be conducted and analysed and the results of such analysis provided to his Community Corrections Officer and/or the Parole Board;
12.   The respondent will attend and undertake counselling for substance abuse and any other substance abuse assessments, programs and interventions at the direction of his Community Corrections Officer;
13.   The respondent will attend and undertake counselling and/or treatment for sexual offending as directed by his Community Corrections Officer;
14.   The respondent will attend, undertake and complete any psychological assessment and comply with any treatment or mental health intervention required thereafter at the direction of this Community Corrections Officer or as ordered by the Parole Board;
15.   The respondent will not contact, or attempt to contact in any way, whether directly or indirectly, or associate, other than by mere presence in a place of public recreation with any person under the age of 18 years of age, unless supervised by his Community Corrections Officer or a person nominated or approved by that Officer;
16.   The respondent will not undertake any remunerated or voluntary work with persons under the age of 18 years or participate in any organisation which provides recreational, social, educational or other activities or facilities for persons under the age of 18 years;
17.   The respondent will not loiter without reasonable excuse at, or in the vicinity of, a school, public toilet, playground or place at which children are regularly present;
18.   The respondent will not loiter without reasonable excuse at, on, or in the vicinity of public transport, and will not sit, or remain seated by, any persons under the age of 18 whilst using public transportation;
19.   The respondent will not utilise public transport between the hours of 0730 (7:30 am) and 0930 (9:30 am) or 1400 (2:00 pm) and 1600 (4:00 pm) without the consent of his Community Corrections Officer;
20.   The respondent will declare and produce to his Community Corrections Officer any computer, tablet, mobile phone, or other electronic equipment that he purchases, loans or which otherwise comes into his possession within 48 hours of it coming into his possession;
21.   In relation to any item declared in accordance with condition 20, the respondent will provide the equipment to his Community Corrections Officer for the purpose of having the equipment analysed to ensure that it is not being used by the respondent to associate or communicate with children;
22.   The respondent will not contact, attempt to contact or associate in any way, whether directly or indirectly, with [SJH].
It is to be observed that consistent with the view recently expressed by Corrections, the Attorney-General does not seek a condition that Mr Coulter be subject to home detention with electronic monitoring.
As I mentioned in opening this judgment, Mr Coulter does not take issue with the propriety of an order being made nor that it contain the conditions outlined above. His sole complaint is that the order should not be for a period of two years from the date of this judgment but of two years duration from the date upon which the interim supervision order was made. Counsel for the Attorney-General submitted that two years was required in order that Mr Coulter complete the SBC-Me course, any necessary follow-up be provided and the degree of intervention be gradually withdrawn, assuming Mr Coulter acquires and maintains the skills necessary to ameliorate his risk.
In Police v Sullivan; Attorney-General (SA) v Sullivan I said:[2]
An extended supervision order should only interfere with the liberty of a respondent to the extent, and for only so long, as is necessary to protect the community from the appreciable risk that the respondent poses. Whilst an extended supervision order may be made for up to five years, it is for the Attorney-General to justify the period of any order sought. It is not to the point that a respondent can subsequently apply for the revocation of an order made for 5 years if in the interim it is no longer required. It is for the State to justify interference with the liberty of the subject.
[footnote omitted]
[2] [2018] SASC 11 at [97]
I remain of this view.
If an extended supervision order is made it remains in force for a period of five years or such lesser period as is determined by the Court and specified in the order.[3] If an extended supervision order of less than five years in duration is made it will be because the Court considers it likely that at the end of the period nominated the appreciable risk that the offender poses will have abated to the extent that the order will no longer be necessary for the protection of the community. An opinion that the risk posed by a high risk offender will abate within a particular period of time will often be based on the likely success of treatment or education programs undertaken by the high risk offender during the period of the extended supervision order. Often these programs will have been suggested, as they were in this case, by the psychologists and psychiatrists from whom reports are obtained. In such circumstances, the prediction involved in determining the length of an extended supervision order requires a consideration of the gains it is anticipated the offender will make as a consequence of his or her participation in treatment or education programs and whether those gains will be lasting. Obviously the opinions of psychologists and psychiatrists as to the likelihood of the high risk offender responding, the gains to be expected and the need for ongoing maintenance will be important to determining the length of an extended supervision order.
[3] Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA), s 12(1)(b).

Plainly, the predictive task is inherently difficult. Importantly, that task is not bounded by the five-year maximum in the same way that the imposition of a sentence is bounded by the maximum penalty prescribed and the principle of proportionality. It may well be that the particular high risk offender requires supervision for a period longer than five years. In this regard the Attorney-General may apply for a second or subsequent extended supervision order if the risk posed by the high risk offender has not sufficiently abated within the term of the expiring order.
Many things can impact upon the likely success or otherwise of treatment and education programs in reducing the risk that a high risk offender poses to the community, not the least of which is the capacity and commitment of the offender. Merely completing a treatment or education program will rarely of itself provide the Court with comfort that the high risk offender subject of an extended supervision order has ceased to pose the risk to the safety of the community that warranted the making of the order. Understandably, the Court will look for some indication that the high risk offender has or will make lasting gains. Sometimes the likelihood of the high risk offender doing so may be questionable. If this is right it suggests that the duration of an extended supervision order may not reflect the period of time necessary to complete a recommended course of treatment or education program. Matters are likely to be more complex. Bearing in mind that the paramount consideration is the protection of the community, it will often be appropriate to provide for a period in which it is demonstrated that gains have been made and new skills and coping strategies deployed such that the appreciable risk is no longer one that demands that an extended supervision order be in place.
I do not consider such approach oppressive or one that pays insufficient regard to the premium that the community places on an individual’s liberty. It must be recalled that the offender poses an appreciable risk to the safety of the community. That risk may be managed, but long term the protection of the community and the right to live free of interference from the executive require behavioural change. If the offender cannot achieve this alone, time must be allowed for executive intervention or intervention funded by the offender to attempt to do so and for such intervention and its impact to be evaluated.
Enough has been written above to indicate that the duration of an extended supervision order cannot be determined without first assessing the risk that the particular high risk offender poses and the likely impact upon that risk that intervention programs may have.
Having regard to Mr Coulter’s history of sexual offending, I accept Dr Raeside’s opinion that Mr Coulter is primarily attracted to older teenage girls. I also accept that his attraction to this age group is in part explained by his low-level of intelligence and, in that connection, his gravitation toward young women of an age that does not threaten him, one approximate to his level of maturity. I also accept that when one takes into account Mr Coulter’s static and dynamic factors as identified by Dr Ferris, and his long-standing drink and drug abuse, and the involvement of drink and drugs in his sexual offending, that his risk of committing a serious sexual offence, absent supervision, is moderate at least.
In short, without intervention I consider it likely that if intoxicated and the opportunity arises Mr Coulter will indecently assault a post-pubescent teenage girl under the age of 18. I am also satisfied that, without intervention, if the circumstances permit, Mr Coulter would enter into a relationship with a post-pubescent teenage girl under the age of 18. Accepting this, I am satisfied that Mr Coulter poses an appreciable risk to the safety of the community if not supervised under an extended supervision order.
Without any positive intervention (by which I mean the involvement of Mr Coulter in programs such as the SBC-Me program, alcohol and drug counselling, one-on-one work with a psychologist and assistance in living independently and attaining job skills) I consider that an extended supervision of five years duration would be appropriate. Such order would be one subjecting Mr Coulter to supervision in addition to monitoring his movement in the community. Without help I do not expect that the risk that Mr Coulter poses would abate within five years to the extent that a supervision order of the kind I have described (one that offers the minimum of supervision and monitors movement in the community) would no longer be required. Whilst the opportunity to offend might be reduced, the risk would remain. Of course, no-one is suggesting that a relatively blunt supervision order be made. Each of Mr Reid, Dr Raeside and Dr Ferris have made suggestions as to intervention regimes that may assist in addressing the risk that Mr Coulter poses, in particular his dynamic risk factors. Those suggestions overlap to a considerable extent. Those suggestions also inform the content of the order sought by the Attorney-General. Further, in many respects the advice has been acted upon already.
As mentioned, Mr Coulter’s contention is that whilst he does pose an appreciable risk to the safety of the community if not supervised under an extended supervision order, and concedes that the conditions in the draft order sought by the Attorney-General are appropriate to address the risk he poses, his liberty should not be constrained by such order for any longer than a further 15 months approximately. In that time he will have completed the SBC-Me program, had the benefit of drug and alcohol counselling for almost two years, had the benefit of working with Ms Morrell for over 12 months and continued to work with his Community Corrections Officer and attended other courses as directed.
Mr Coulter’s counsel pointed to the report provided by Corrections regarding Mr Coulter’s engagement with his Community Corrections Officer and Owenia House to date and his compliance with the interim supervision order generally.[4] In this latter regard he referred to the June 2018 breach of reporting obligations as explainable on the basis of Mr Coulter’s low intellectual functioning.
[4] See above at [25].
There is no doubt that Mr Coulter is to be commended for his commitment to the regime that has been implemented under the auspices of the interim supervision order. And, equally, his progress is very encouraging. But there has been erected around him a regime that at present provides no indication as to whether he has made any lasting gains or will do so such that when the regime is dismantled, as it will be immediately upon the expiration of the extended supervision order, this Court can be satisfied that the risk he poses has abated to the extent that the order is no longer necessary.
Mr Coulter’s static and dynamic factors indicate that for the risk he poses to abate behavioural change, which he is unable to accomplish alone, must occur. Absent the success of the current interventions, the risk he poses will not, in my view, abate within two years. It takes time for an offender to acquire new skills and coping strategies and time to surround him or herself with protective factors. The task is all the more daunting for someone like Mr Coulter having regard to his personal circumstances and intellectual capacity. Consequently, I cannot say that the order will no longer be necessary to protect the public in approximately 15 months’ time. I consider that to cease the order in approximately 15 months’ time with little opportunity to review and evaluate whether Mr Coulter has made sufficient lasting gains provides the public and this Court with no comfort that the protection provided by the order is no longer required. I also consider that the relatively abrupt withdrawal of the concentrated effort currently undertaken would not be in Mr Coulter’s best interests. To my mind, the risk he poses demands the intense intervention currently underway which, upon positive evaluation, will need to be gradually wound back and, in some places, the roles played by Corrections and other professionals acting under the umbrella of Correction’s supervision, assumed by others. A period of adjustment will be required to allow this to occur. As I have said, I think that time for such transition to occur is not only in the interests of the protection of the public but also is in Mr Coulter’s interests.
For these reasons I consider that the extended supervision order should be for a period of two years commencing on the date of this judgment.