Attorney-General (SA) v Coaby - [2019] SASC 137

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal: Application)
ATTORNEY-GENERAL (SA) v COABY
[2019] SASC 137
Judgment of The Honourable Justice Hughes
7 August 2019
CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - POST-CUSTODIAL ORDERS - OTHER TYPES OF POST-CUSTODIAL ORDERS
CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - SENTENCING ORDERS - ORDERS AND DECLARATIONS RELATING TO SERIOUS OR VIOLENT OFFENDERS OR DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDERS - SERIOUS OR VIOLENT OFFENDER
On 31 August 2017, this Court made an extended supervision order with respect to the respondent pursuant to s 7 of the Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA) (the Act). The extended supervision order is due to expire on 31 August 2019.
Following the imposition of the extended supervision order, the respondent breached the order on numerous occasions. On 4 September 2018, the Parole Board made a referral to this Court pursuant to s 17(1)(b)(ii) as to whether the respondent should be subject to a continuing detention order. On 13 February 2019, this Court determined that a continuing detention was not required to secure the protection of the community. The respondent was released, however committed further breaches in March and May 2019.
Between 31 May 2019 and 2 June 2019, the respondent was arrested for various offences and was remanded in custody. On 16 July 2019, the Parole Board satisfied itself that the respondent had breached the conditions of his extended supervision order by failing to be home between the hours of 9 pm and 6 am and by removing an electronic monitoring device. Pursuant to s 17(1)(b)(ii), the Parole Board once again directed that the respondent be detained in custody pending attendance before this Court for determination as to whether a continuing detention order should be made under s 18(2) of the Act.
Held, the respondent breached the conditions of his extended supervision order. However, a continuing detention order is not required to secure the protection of the community. The referral for a continuing detention order is dismissed.
Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA) s 18, referred to.
Police v Sullivan; Attorney-General (SA) v Sullivan [2018] SASC 11; R v Schuster [2016] SASCFC 86; (2016) 125 SASR 388; Attorney-General (SA) v Sullivan (No 2) [2018] SASC 74, considered.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL (SA) v COABY
[2019] SASC 137
HUGHES J:

I am required to decide whether Mr Coaby should be subject to a continuing detention order pursuant to s 18 of the Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (“the Act”).
I have considered the affidavits of Mr S O’Flaherty sworn on 23 July 2019, Mr G Truscott affirmed on 30 July 2019, a chronology prepared by the Crown Solicitor on behalf of the Attorney-General, and without objection the materials filed in relation to the extended supervision order in SCCRM 135 of 2017, and an earlier referral of a continuing detention order in proceedings SCCRM 384 of 2018.
A continuing detention order relates to a supervision order
A pre-condition for the making of a continuing detention order in respect of a person…

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 Coaby

Details

AGLC: Attorney-General (SA) v Coaby [2019] SASC 137
Case: [2019] SASC 137
Decision Date: 7 August 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Attorney-General (SA) v Coaby involved the Attorney-General of South Australia as the plaintiff and the defendant, Coaby. The dispute pertained to the sentencing of Coaby, who had been convicted of serious or violent offences. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia. The primary issue before the court was whether the sentencing judge had correctly exercised his discretion when imposing a post-custodial order on Coaby, and if the order was appropriate given the nature of his crimes.

The court was tasked with examining the appropriateness of the post-custodial order imposed on Coaby, which included a serious or violent offender declaration. The legal issue was whether the order was justified in light of Coaby's criminal history and the seriousness of his offences. The court considered whether the sentencing judge had correctly applied the relevant statutory provisions and case law in determining the appropriate sentence and post-custodial order for Coaby. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the order was proportionate to the crimes committed and served the purposes of denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

The Supreme Court of South Australia determined that the sentencing judge had correctly exercised his discretion in imposing the post-custodial order on Coaby. The court held that the order was appropriate given the nature and circumstances of Coaby's offences. The court found that the sentencing judge had considered all relevant factors, including Coaby's criminal history, the seriousness of the crimes, and the need for public protection. The court also noted that the order was proportionate to the crimes committed and served the purposes of denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the post-custodial order remained in place.

Orders