Attorney-General (SA) v ADAMS - [2020] SASC 58

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal: Application)
ATTORNEY-GENERAL (SA) v ADAMS
[2020] SASC 58
Judgment of The Honourable Justice Nicholson
22 April 2020
CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - POST-CUSTODIAL ORDERS - OTHER TYPES OF POST-CUSTODIAL ORDERS - OTHER MATTERS
CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - SENTENCING ORDERS - ORDERS AND DECLARATIONS RELATING TO SERIOUS OR VIOLENT OFFENDERS OR DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDERS
The Attorney-General (SA) made an application pursuant to s 7 of the Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA) seeking a 2 year extended supervision order in relation to the respondent. The respondent opposes the application on the basis that he does not meet the threshold requirements required by the Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA). The respondent submits: that he did not commit a “serious offence of violence” as defined and therefore is not a high risk offender; and, that he does not pose an appreciable risk to the safety of the community if not supervised under the order.
Held, allowing the application for an extended supervision order:
(1) The respondent meets the threshold requirement to be regarded as a high risk offender as defined in the Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA) because his offending conduct involved a risk of serious harm to the victim, in that it involved a risk of harm consisting of serious and protracted impairment of a physical or mental function or consisting of serious disfigurement.
(2) The respondent poses an appreciable risk to the safety of the community if not supervised under an extended supervision order.
(3) The respondent is to be subject to an extended supervision order with the conditions proposed by the Attorney-General, excluding electronic monitoring, for a period of 2 years from the date of the order.
Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA) s 4, s 5, s 7, s 12; Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 21, s 24, s 83D, referred to.
Attorney-General (SA) v Wikaire (2017) 127 SASR 565; Attorney-General (SA) v Jeffery (2018) 130 SASR 300; Attorney-General (SA) v Davidson [2018] SASC 91; Attorney-General (SA) v Laughlin [2019] SASC 105, applied.
Attorney-General (SA) v Wells [2017] SASC 149; Attorney-General (SA) v Kember [2019] SASC 19; Attorney-General (SA) v Gates (2017) 129 SASR 298; Attorney-General (SA) v Grosser [2016] SASC 49, considered.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL (SA) v ADAMS
[2020] SASC 58
Criminal: Application

NICHOLSON J: On 28 June 2018, the Attorney-General applied for the respondent to be subjected to an extended supervision order pursuant to subsection 7(4) of the Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA) (the Act). The application is contested. The application was brought before the term of imprisonment then being served by the respondent was due to expire.
The Attorney was unsuccessful before Vanstone J in obtaining an interim supervision order prior to the respondent’s release from custody at the expiration of his sentence in late July 2018. Since then, the respondent has spent much of the time in…

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 Attorney-General (SA) v ADAMS

Details

AGLC: Attorney-General (SA) v ADAMS [2020] SASC 58
Case: [2020] SASC 58
Decision Date: 22 April 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of South Australia, the Attorney-General sought to appeal a sentence imposed on a defendant, Mr. Adams, who had been convicted of serious violent criminal offences. The court was asked to determine whether the sentencing judge had erred in imposing a post-custodial supervision order, as well as a dangerous sexual offender declaration, on Mr. Adams. These orders were intended to manage the risk posed by Mr. Adams post-release from prison.

The key issues before the court were whether the sentencing judge had correctly applied the relevant statutory provisions and principles in sentencing Mr. Adams, and whether the post-custodial orders were appropriate in the circumstances. The Attorney-General argued that the sentencing judge had not adequately considered the severity of the offences and the risk posed by Mr. Adams, and that the orders imposed were insufficient to protect the community. The court had to assess the reasoning of the sentencing judge, the evidence presented, and the legal framework governing post-custodial orders.

The court found that the sentencing judge had indeed considered the seriousness of the offences and the risk posed by Mr. Adams, and had exercised their discretion in a manner consistent with the relevant statutory provisions. The post-custodial orders were deemed appropriate given the nature of the offences and the need to manage the risk Mr. Adams posed to the community. The court held that the sentencing judge had exercised their discretion appropriately, and that the post-custodial orders were both necessary and proportionate. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The Supreme Court confirmed the original sentence and post-custodial orders imposed on Mr. Adams, finding no error in the sentencing process. The court's decision underscored the importance of judicial discretion in sentencing and the need to consider the specific circumstances of each case when imposing post-custodial orders.

Orders