Attorney-General (SA) v Colangelo - [2025] SASC 2

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal: Application)

ATTORNEY-GENERAL (SA) v COLANGELO
[2025] SASC 2
Judgment of the Honourable Justice McDonald
15 January 2025
CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - SENTENCING ORDERS - ORDERS AND DECLARATIONS RELATING TO SERIOUS OR VIOLENT OFFENDERS OR DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDERS
CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - POST-CUSTODIAL ORDERS - OTHER TYPES OF POST-CUSTODIAL ORDERS
This is an application for an Extended Detention Order (EDO) pursuant to s 57(3) of the Sentencing Act 2017 (SA). The respondent is currently serving a term of imprisonment which is due to expire on the 20 January 2025. In the alterative, the Attorney-General makes an application for an Extended Supervision Order (ESO) pursuant to s 7(1) of the Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA). As these applications will not be determined prior to the respondent’s release date, the Attorney-General has made an application for an Interim Detention Order (IDO) or an Interim Supervision Order (ISO). The respondent does not contest the imposition of an ISO or an ESO, however opposes the making of any form of detention order.
The applicant brings both the applications on the basis that the respondent remains at a high risk of reoffending, due to his unwillingness to fully address his sexual offending, the protracted history of such offending and the pattern of escalation overtime, coupled with poor compliance with orders and directions, including breaches of suspended sentence bonds and breach of bail. It is further contended that respondent continues to a pose a significant risk to the community due to his expressed concerns regarding the possibility of reoffending, including the potential for escalating to a contact offence and a concern arising from the lack of strategies and mechanisms available to the respondent in managing these risk factors if released back into the community. The applicant thus contends that the imposition of an EDO (IDO), or alternatively an ESO (ISO), is paramount to protecting the safety of the community.
The application for an IDO is contested on the basis that the purported risk that the respondent may pose upon release into the community, can be managed under a strict regime of ISO conditions. The respondent further contends that the support from his family and community members will serve as a deterrent against reoffending, while also helping him remain compliant with any proposed conditions. The respondent further contends that the delay by the Attorney-General in bringing the application should be given relevant consideration.
Held; application granted.
1. The application for an IDO is granted.
2.The respondent is to be subject to an IDO pending the determination of the proceedings in respect of the CDO.

Sentencing Act 2017 (SA) s 57(5); Child Sex Offenders Registration Act 2006 (SA); Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA) s 7, s 9(1); Correctional Services Act 1982 (SA) s 64(5), referred to.
R v Bolbot [2013] SASCFC 110; R v Padberg [2010] SASC 189, applied.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL (SA) v COLANGELO
[2025] SASC 2
Criminal: Application
McDONALD J:

The Attorney-General has…

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 Colangelo

Details

AGLC: Attorney-General (SA) v Colangelo [2025] SASC 2
Case: [2025] SASC 2
Decision Date: 15 January 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Attorney-General (SA) v Colangelo involves a dispute over the sentencing and post-custodial orders for Mr Colangelo. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia. The primary issue before the court was whether Mr Colangelo, who had a history of violent criminal offending, should be subject to an Intensive Supervision Order (ISO) or an Intensive Detention Order (IDO). The Attorney-General argued for an IDO, while Mr Colangelo contended that an ISO would suffice.

The court considered the history and previous treatment responses of Mr Colangelo, weighing his personal circumstances against the risk he posed to the community. Ms Graham's reports, which included actuarial risk assessments, were central to the decision-making process. The court found that while there were concerns about the reliability of the Violence Risk Scale used in the reports, there was enough other information to make a determination.

In its reasoning, the court noted Mr Colangelo's history of offending and poor response to treatment, which the Attorney-General argued warranted his detention pending further expert reports. However, the court also considered Mr Colangelo's arguments that an ISO would provide sufficient community protection. Ultimately, the court decided that an ISO was appropriate in this case, taking into account the availability of such an order and its adequacy to protect the community.

The court's final order was to impose an Intensive Supervision Order on Mr Colangelo, reflecting its determination that this order would provide adequate protection to the community while allowing Mr Colangelo the opportunity for rehabilitation outside of custody.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

The final two sections, sections 9 and 10 “Recommendations” and “Legislative considerations”, discuss the further treatment and legislative options for Mr Colangelo both in a custodial and non-custodial environment. There is no objection taken to any of the information contained within those two sections.Consideration of the admissibility of materials relied upon by the Attorney-General As is apparent from this brief summary, the area of dispute in relation to the four SBC reports has now become very narrow and well defined. It relates purely to Ms Graham’s use of the actuarial risk assessment measure, the “Violence Risk Scale”. Other than making reference to having used this risk assessment tool, and the results of the assessment, there is very little information before me to establish what is involved in the process or the scientific validity of this means of measuring risk. Ms Graham devotes very little time in the reports to the Violence Risk Scale results, with a much greater emphasis on her own observations of and conversations with Mr Colangelo. In those circumstances, I have determined that there is sufficient information contained elsewhere in the reports to assist me in coming to a decision on the applications currently before me. I therefore do not propose to rely on the impugned portions of the relevant reports. I make plain, that this is not intended to in any way reflect a more general view about the reliability or appropriateness of the Violence Risk Scale in measuring risk. On the facts and circumstances of this case, I have insufficient information to make such a determination and it is not necessary for me to come to a concluded view on the issue. Should an ISO or an IDO be made? As I have mentioned, Mr Colangelo does not oppose the imposition of an ISO. In fact, he relies upon the conditions of such an order as an argument in favour against making the IDO. That is, that the availability of an ISO provides the community with a level of protection that makes it unnecessary to go to the length of keeping Mr Colangelo in custody, pending the provision of expert reports and the determination of the substantive application. It is, however, the Attorney-General’s submission, that Mr Colangelo’s history and his poor response to treatment, place him in a category of offender that poses such a grave risk to the safety of the community, that it is necessary to detain him in custody at least until the Court has received more current expert reports.Personal circumstances To put the competing submissions into their proper context it is necessary to set out some of Mr Colangelo’s background, including his history of criminal offending and response to previous treatment.Background Mr Colangelo grew up with his parents and four younger sisters. He had a stable upbringing, and his parents remain together. He described having a good childhood. Mr Colangelo attended school until year 3, at which time his mother commenced home schooling him, along with his sisters. Mr Colangelo completed his school education by finishing year 10. Since then he has completed a Certificate III in Conservation Management and a Certificate II in Horticulture at TAFE. Over the years he has been engaged in short term employment including car washing and landscaping, before obtaining full-time work in demolition, which came to an end as a consequence of his incarceration.