ATTORNEY-GENERAL (SA) v Coulter

Supreme Court of South Australia
(Criminal: Application)
ATTORNEY-GENERAL (SA) v COULTER
[2018] SASC 177
Reasons for Ruling of The Honourable Chief Justice Kourakis (ex tempore)
7 November 2018
CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - SENTENCING ORDERS - ORDERS AND DECLARATIONS RELATING TO SERIOUS OR VIOLENT OFFENDERS OR DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDERS - DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDER - GENERALLY
CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - POST-CUSTODIAL ORDERS - OTHER TYPES OF POST-CUSTODIAL ORDERS
Application to vary an interim supervision order pursuant to s 17 of the Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA). The respondent had previously been subject to an interim supervision order made on 13 June 2018. At the time of judgment the final determination as to whether the respondent be subject to an extended supervision order pursuant to s 7 is yet to be made.
It was alleged that the respondent breached conditions of the interim supervision order by not providing notification to the Parole Board of a social media account. The Parole Board issued a warrant and the respondent was subsequently arrested. The Parole Board were satisfied that the alleged breaches were proven and, as a consequence, varied a condition of the interim supervision order pursuant to s 17 of the Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA) by imposing an additional condition of electronic monitoring and home detention.
The respondent applies to this Court to vary the interim supervision order to remove the condition of electronic monitoring and home detention as imposed by the Parole Board. The applicant contests this application.
Held, following argument as to the form of the conditions to be varied:
1. The application to vary conditions of the interim supervision order is granted.
Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA) s 17, referred to.

WORDS AND PHRASES CONSIDERED/DEFINED
"High risk offender", "interim supervision order"

ATTORNEY-GENERAL (SA) v COULTER
[2018] SASC 177
Criminal

KOURAKIS CJ (ex tempore): This is an interlocutory application made in the course of proceedings for an extended supervision order. An interim supervision order was made on 13 June 2018. The respondent breached that order by not giving early notification of the operation of a social media account. He was arrested on a Parole Board warrant on 4 September 2018 and was taken into custody on the same date. He was released on 25 September 2018 but the Parole Board varied the conditions of the interim supervision order to include home detention and electronic monitoring.
The Parole Board's power to vary the condition of an interim supervision order on breach is found in s 17 of the Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA) (the Act).
The respondent’s application is that this Court remove the conditions of electronic monitoring and home detention imposed by the Parole Board.
The supervision of persons on interim and extended supervision orders is shared between this Court and the Parole Board. The Parole Board has particular expertise in the monitoring of persons subject to community corrections regimes. In order for this joint responsibility to work effectively it is appropriate that this Court accord the Parole Board a substantial degree of deference in the decisions it makes.
I understand and acknowledge the force of Mr Williams' submission that there is no direct connection between the condition imposed and the breach of the term. However, it may be that the Parole Board was concerned that this breach was more significant than Mr Coulter's explanation, that he had a mistaken view of what was included in the meaning of social media, would suggest. The Parole Board may have taken the view that the breach was a manifestation of deeper problems. In that risk management exercise the Parole Board has proceeded prudently in order to protect the community. I cannot say that it was wrong to do so.
I acknowledge and commend both Mr Coulter and Mr Williams for the efforts they have made to ensure that Mr Coulter fully understands his Australian National Child Offender Register (ANCOR) obligations and the terms and conditions of his ANCOR and the interim supervision order. If those efforts have their intended effect, hopefully there will not be a further breach of the interim supervision order and the electronic detention regime may have an early end.
I am not persuaded that I should interfere with the imposition of the electronic monitoring and home detention condition. However, I am prepared to vary the interim supervision order so that Mr Coulter may spend up to 14 hours on Christmas Day with a family member provided that he gives 48 hours’ notice to his supervising officer of the name of the family member or members and the locations at which he will attend. I also vary the interim supervision order to allow Mr Coulter permission to go Christmas shopping on three separate occasions for a six-hour duration provided that he gives 24 hours’ notice of the place and times at which he will undertake that Christmas shopping to his supervising officer.

In the matter of the Attorney-General of South Australia versus Coulter, the respondent was convicted for various sexual offences. The case came before the South Australian Supreme Court, where the primary focus was on determining appropriate sentencing and post-custodial orders, particularly in light of the respondent's classification as a dangerous sexual offender. The respondent, having previously been convicted of similar offences, was deemed to pose a significant risk to the community.

The central legal issues before the court involved the severity and nature of the sentencing, including the imposition of post-custodial orders such as supervision and notification requirements. Given the respondent's history and classification, the court was tasked with ensuring that the sentence adequately reflected the risk he posed and provided for sufficient measures to protect the community post-release. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the orders were proportionate to the nature and gravity of the offences committed.

The court found that the cumulative effect of the respondent's criminal history, coupled with the severity of the current offences, warranted a sentence that included stringent post-custodial measures. The court detailed that the respondent’s past convictions and the nature of the current offences indicated a high likelihood of reoffending. Therefore, the court imposed a lengthy custodial sentence along with post-release supervision orders, including a requirement for the respondent to register as a sex offender and comply with regular reporting obligations. The court also mandated that the respondent undergo psychological treatment as part of the rehabilitation efforts.

The court concluded by issuing detailed orders for the respondent's post-release management, ensuring that these measures were robust enough to address the risk he posed to the community. The final orders included a significant custodial term, extended supervision, and mandatory participation in a rehabilitation program designed for dangerous sexual offenders.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established