Attorney-General (SA) v BRADBROOK - [2020] SASC 57

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal: Application)
ATTORNEY-GENERAL (SA) v BRADBROOK
[2020] SASC 57
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) for an extended supervision order in relation to the respondent. Pending the determination of the application, the Court made an interim supervision order against the respondent on 1 October 2019. The Attorney-General seeks a 3 year extended supervision order. The respondent opposes the making of an extended supervision order on the basis that he does not meet its threshold requirements under the Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA). The respondent submits: that he has not committed a “serious offence of violence” (as defined); he does not pose an appreciable risk to the safety of the community if not supervised under the order. The respondent further challenges the proposed electronic monitoring and curfew conditions.
Held, allowing the application for an extended supervision order:
(1) The respondent meets the threshold requirements to be regarded as a high risk offender as defined in the Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA). His offending conduct involved at least 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. Further, the respondent poses an appreciable risk to the safety of the community if not supervised under an extended supervision order.
(2) The respondent is to be subject to an extended supervision order with conditions, including electronic monitoring and curfew conditions, for a period of 2 years and 6 months from the date of the order.
Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA) s 4, s 7, s 9, 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 BRADBROOK
[2020] SASC 57
Criminal: Application

NICHOLSON J: The Attorney-General has 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. On 1 October 2019, I made an interim supervision order pursuant to section 9 of the Act which was to remain until the determination of the application for an…

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 BRADBROOK

Details

AGLC: Attorney-General (SA) v BRADBROOK [2020] SASC 57
Case: [2020] SASC 57
Decision Date: 22 April 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of South Australia, the Attorney-General sought an extended supervision order against the respondent, BRADBROOK, under the provisions of the Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015. The application was based on the respondent's past criminal history and perceived risk to the community. The respondent contested the application, arguing that he did not meet the criteria for such an order, specifically the requirement of having committed a serious offence of violence and posing an appreciable risk to public safety. The matter was heard with an interim supervision order already in place, pending the final determination.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the respondent's criminal history and behaviour justified an extended supervision order under the Act, and if so, what conditions should be imposed. The court had to consider the definition of "serious offence of violence" and the risk assessment criteria outlined in the Act. Additionally, the court needed to evaluate the appropriateness of the proposed electronic monitoring and curfew conditions as part of the supervision order.

In its judgment, the court found that the respondent had indeed committed a serious offence of violence, meeting the criteria set by the Act. It also concluded that the respondent posed an appreciable risk to the community, thereby justifying the imposition of an extended supervision order. The court further determined that the proposed electronic monitoring and curfew conditions were reasonable and necessary to ensure public safety. Consequently, the court granted the Attorney-General's application for a three-year extended supervision order with the specified conditions.

The court's final order mandated that the respondent, BRADBROOK, be subject to an extended supervision order for a period of three years. This order included electronic monitoring and curfew conditions to ensure ongoing oversight and to mitigate any potential risk to the community. The respondent was also subject to the interim supervision order until the final order was made, ensuring continuous supervision during the proceedings.

Orders