Attorney-General (SA) v Driver

In the Supreme Court of South Australia, the Attorney-General sought an order for the detention of Mr Driver under section 57 of the Sentencing Act. Mr Driver had completed his head sentence but remained in custody pending the determination of this application. The court heard evidence from psychiatrists, psychologists, and other experts, as well as affidavits from Mr Driver’s family and the National Disability Insurance Agency.

The legal issues before the court were whether Mr Driver should be detained under section 57 of the Sentencing Act and, if so, whether an extended supervision order should be made under the High Risk Offenders Act. The court considered the risk Mr Driver posed to the community, his unwillingness to control his sexual instincts, and the effectiveness of electronic monitoring as a means of curbing that risk.

The court found that Mr Driver was both at high risk of reoffending and unwilling to control his sexual instincts. While acknowledging the unfairness of Mr Driver’s array of difficulties and disadvantages, the court was troubled that his offending was not easily addressed or explained. The court concluded that if released, Mr Driver would likely again become isolated, angry, and sexually frustrated, engaging in brazen sexual offending. Electronic monitoring was found to be ineffective in curbing this risk. The court also concluded that an extended supervision order with conditions permitting or requiring that Mr Driver reside in the Northern Territory was beyond the court's jurisdiction and would not be effective.

The court ordered that Mr Driver be detained in custody until further order pursuant to section 57(7) of the Sentencing Act. The court found it appropriate and necessary to make this order for the protection of the community, given the high risk Mr Driver posed if not supervised. The court declined to make an extended supervision order under the High Risk Offenders Act, finding it inappropriate in these circumstances.