Attorney-General (SA) v Ellis - [2025] SASC 119

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal: Application)

ATTORNEY-GENERAL (SA) v ELLIS
[2025] SASC 119
Judgment of the Honourable Justice Stein
22 July 2025
CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - SENTENCING ORDERS - ORDERS AND DECLARATIONS RELATING TO SERIOUS OR VIOLENT OFFENDERS OR DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDERS
CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - SENTENCING ORDERS - CUSTODIAL ORDERS - PREVENTIVE DETENTION
An application for a continuing detention order (“CDO”) under s 18 of the Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA).
The Attorney-General filed an originating application and notice of referral seeking determination as to whether a CDO should be made in respect of the respondent on the basis of alleged breaches of an extended supervision order (“ESO”) imposed on him in 2023.
Held (granting the application):
1.The respondent has breached the conditions of his ESO;
2.The breaches are serious enough to establish that the respondent is an appreciable risk to the safety of the community if not detained and the Court exercises the discretion to grant the application and make a CDO to detain the respondent until the end of December 2026.

Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA) s 18, referred to.
Attorney-General (SA) v Grosser [2016] SASC 49; R v Schuster 2016) 125 SASR 388; Police v Sullivan; Attorney-General (SA) v Sullivan [2018] SASC 11; Attorney-General (SA) v Drion [2020] SASC 120; Attorney-General (Qld) v Francis [2007] 1 Qd R 396; Garlett v Western Australia (2022) 277 CLR 1; Attorney-General (SA) v Coaby [2019] SASC 137, considered.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL (SA) v ELLIS
[2025] SASC 119
Criminal: Application

STEIN J: The Attorney-General has applied for a continuing detention order (“CDO”) in respect of the respondent, Mr Trystan Ellis, pursuant to s 18 of the Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA) (“HRO Act”). The application for a CDO is based on alleged breaches of an extended supervision order (“ESO”) imposed on Mr Ellis on 5 June 2024 for a period of three years.
On 23 November 2024, the Parole Board issued a warrant which authorised Mr Ellis to remain in custody following allegations of breach of conditions of the ESO. The warrant was executed in December 2024 and Mr Ellis has remained in custody since then. On 22 April 2025, the Parole Board satisfied itself Mr Ellis had breached conditions of the ESO.
Section 18(2) of the HRO Act provides that this Court may make a CDO for the remainder of the term of the ESO, or for such lesser period as the Court thinks fit, provided the Court is satisfied that Mr Ellis has breached a condition of his ESO and poses an appreciable risk to the safety of the community if not detained in custody.
The paramount consideration in exercising the power conferred by s 18 of the HRO Act is the safety of the community.[1]
[1] Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA), s 18(3).
General principles
The matters contained…

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 Ellis

Details

AGLC: Attorney-General (SA) v Ellis [2025] SASC 119
Case: [2025] SASC 119
Decision Date: 22 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Attorney-General (SA) v Ellis, the applicant sought a continuing detention order (CDO) against Mr Ellis, who had been subject to an extended supervision order (ESO). Mr Ellis argued that the CDO should be refused because the ESO required him to remain in South Australia without personal connections or cultural ties. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the CDO should be granted given Mr Ellis's history of breaches and the risk he posed to the community.

The court addressed the issue by examining whether Mr Ellis posed an appreciable risk to the community and whether a CDO was appropriate given that risk. It noted Mr Ellis's history of violent and sexual offending, while intoxicated, and his pattern of breaching bail, bond, and intervention orders. The court found that Mr Ellis's breaches of the ESO were significant and serious, particularly his consumption of methamphetamine and amphetamine, which directly engaged his criminogenic risk factors. The court concluded that Mr Ellis had not engaged in the necessary rehabilitative programs and had breached the ESO conditions in a serious way. The court determined that Mr Ellis posed an appreciable risk to the community, justifying the imposition of a CDO.

In light of the above, the court found that Mr Ellis posed an appreciable risk to the community and that a CDO was warranted. The court granted the application for a CDO, and Mr Ellis was to be detained in 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

Mr Ellis submitted the CDO should be refused because the ESO was made against him requiring him to remain in South Australia without personal connections or cultural ties. I am not persuaded that constitutes good reason to decline the CDO. The ESO was made on the basis that Mr Ellis posed an appreciable risk to the safety of the community and that he ought to be the subject of supervision to address his criminogenic risk. In placing Mr Ellis on an ESO, Kourakis CJ rejected the arguments put to him in relation to Mr Ellis returning to Western Australia, concluding it would leave the South Australia community at risk if Mr Ellis was allowed to return to Western Australia without having addressed his criminogenic risk. Chief Justice Kourakis further considered it was necessary for Mr Ellis to engage in programs in South Australia to be well on the way to changing himself before returning to Western Australia. Apart from making enquiries with service providers, it appears Mr Ellis has not made any progress in this regard. Consideration of appreciable risk and exercise of discretion The critical question is whether Mr Ellis poses an appreciable risk to the community and whether, in light of that risk, a continuing detention order should be made. The history of Mr Ellis’ breaches are relevant both to the question whether Mr Ellis poses an appreciable risk to the safety of the community if not detained and to the exercise of my discretion. Mr Ellis’ history of offending includes both violent and sexual offending while intoxicated. His history of breaches of bail, bond and intervention orders indicates that Mr Ellis is not deterred from breaching Court orders. While I accept that Mr Ellis did not commit further offences, the breaches of the ESO giving rise to the CDO application are neither insignificant nor technical. Breaches of the no drugs condition, breaching the conditions of the ESO relating to a protected person and removing the electronic monitoring device and absconding are significant and serious breaches. Further, while there was no breach of the no alcohol condition, Mr Ellis breached the no drugs condition by consuming methamphetamine and amphetamine. Mr Williams’ opinions in relation to Mr Ellis’ risk were not limited to alcohol consumption but included increased risk associated with consumption of illicit drugs. The breaches by their very nature directly engaged Mr Ellis’ criminogenic risk factors and are associated with risk to community safety. The risk that Mr Ellis poses is an appreciable one based on the evidence of his prior offending, the nature of his breaches and the fact that he has not, as yet, completed rehabilitation programs. Regardless of whether Mr Ellis remains in a relationship with the protected person, Mr Ellis’ risk has not reduced from that which he posed when initially released into the community as he has not engaged in the appropriate rehabilitative programs. Since being released, Mr Ellis has breached the ESO conditions in a serious way indicating that supervision has not achieved its intended purpose. Accordingly, in the light of the material before me, in particular Mr Ellis’s history of offending, the opinions of Mr Williams, and the nature of Mr Ellis’ breaches of the ESO, I am satisfied that Mr Ellis poses an appreciable risk to the community if not detained in custody.