Attorney-General (SA) v Fieldhouse - [2024] SASC 150

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal: Application)

ATTORNEY-GENERAL (SA) v FIELDHOUSE
[2024] SASC 150
Judgment of the Honourable Justice McDonald
18 December 2024
CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - POST-CUSTODIAL ORDERS - OTHER TYPES OF POST-CUSTODIAL ORDERS
This is an application for a Continuing Detention Order (CDO) pursuant to s 18(2) of the Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA) (HRO Act). The respondent is currently the subject of an Extended Supervision Order (ESO) that is due to expire on 12 March 2025. The Attorney-General makes an application for the imposition of CDO until the expiry of the ESO.
The applicant brings this application on the basis that the respondent has repeatedly breached his ESO conditions, initially imposed following the respondent committing a serious violent offence. The applicant contends that the respondent poses an appreciable risk to the safety of the community if not detained in custody. Amongst the multiple breaches overtime are the respondent testing positive for methylamphetamine and cannabis, contravening the terms of an electronic monitoring condition, and new criminal charges of driving dangerously to escape a police pursuit, driving without due care and hindering police.
In bringing this application, the applicant contends that while the respondent has not been convicted of any violent offences, his risk has manifested in a pattern of the consumption of illicit drugs, and disinhibited behaviour placing the community at risk. This application is contested on the basis that the evidence relied upon does not establish that the respondent poses an appreciable risk to the safety of the community. It is further submitted that the most effective protection for the community is for the respondent to engage in rehabilitation and regain his mental health, which can be achieved upon reintegration into the community with the support of the appropriate ESO conditions.
The applicant has made an alternative application for a variation to the ESO to increase the stringency of the conditions.
Held:
1. The application for the imposition of a CDO is to be dismissed.
2.The subsequent application, brought by the applicant, to vary the respondent’s current ESO is granted.

Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA) s 5(c), s 18(2); Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 23(3), s 19AC(1)(a); Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA) s 6(2); Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA) s 45(1), referred to.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL (SA) v FIELDHOUSE
[2024] SASC 150
Criminal: Application
McDONALD J.

This is an application by the Attorney-General for Jake Fieldhouse to be the subject of a Continuing Detention Order (CDO) pursuant to s 18 of the Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2014 (SA) (HRO Act). That section provides that a CDO can be made if the court is satisfied that a person has breached a condition of a supervision order and that they pose an appreciable risk to the community if not detained in custody. The CDO may be made until the expiration of the supervision order, or for a lesser period as specified by the court.[1] Currently Mr Fieldhouse is the subject…

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 Fieldhouse

Details

AGLC: Attorney-General (SA) v Fieldhouse [2024] SASC 150
Case: [2024] SASC 150
Decision Date: 18 December 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Attorney-General (SA) v Fieldhouse involved the respondent, Mr Fieldhouse, who faced sentencing following breaches of his Extended Supervision Order (ESO). The Attorney-General sought a Community Detention Order (CDO) for Mr Fieldhouse. The primary issue before the court was whether the risk posed by Mr Fieldhouse to the community warranted a CDO, given his history of mental health issues and substance abuse, which exacerbated his offending behavior.

The court examined the psychiatric evidence and reports from Dr Oliver Burgess and Dr Craig Raeside, which highlighted Mr Fieldhouse's history of drug-induced psychoses and substance abuse. Despite Mr Fieldhouse's recognition of his mental health issues and his proactive steps to seek treatment, the Attorney-General argued for a CDO to mitigate the risk he posed to the community. The court had to balance the necessity of protecting the community against Mr Fieldhouse's rights and his demonstrated efforts to address his mental health and substance abuse issues.

The court considered the available support systems for Mr Fieldhouse, including his employment, his willingness to comply with medication, and the offer of support from a friend. The court concluded that Mr Fieldhouse's release on an ESO, supplemented with appropriate support, was sufficient to protect the community. The judge deemed a CDO unnecessary, as it would be too restrictive and counterproductive for Mr Fieldhouse's rehabilitation. The court also noted that the Attorney-General could apply to vary the ESO conditions to provide more tailored support if needed.

The final orders of the court were that Mr Fieldhouse would be released on an ESO with specified conditions, effective from 13 March 2025. The court emphasized the importance of continued treatment and support for Mr Fieldhouse, ensuring that he had access to medication and a supportive environment to prevent further offending.

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

On the basis of the breaches that the Parole Board found proved, they determined to detain Mr Fieldhouse in custody pending attendance before this court for consideration of a CDO.Psychiatric evidence Amongst the materials relied upon by the Attorney-General are reports of Dr Oliver Burgess dated 22 March 2021 and Dr Craig Raeside dated 13 February 2024.2021 Report of Dr Burgess The report of Dr Burgess was prepared as the result of an order made under s 7(3)(B) of the HRO Act at the time of the Attorney-General’s first application for an ESO. For the purpose of preparing the report Dr Burgess had available to him various medical records, including hospital separation summaries. From these records, Dr Burgess provided an account of two hospital presentations that involved Mr Fieldhouse experiencing what appeared to be a drug induced psychosis. He explained:… His first presentation occurred February 2016 following several weeks of methamphetamine use, culminating in an episode where “he was carrying a knife and acting in a threatening manner towards members of the public, accusing them of being paedophiles. He was also referring to a demon and “said he was a risk of harming other people as a result of this. He had been physically aggressive towards his father and brother. He told SAPOL of a desire to kill the demon but understood this would mean killing himself”. During his admission he made a rapid recovery. On discharge, he “denied any delusional content and displayed good insight and judgment regarding this episode”. The second episode recounted by Dr Burgess occurred in September 2020:In September 2020 he presented for a second time with a drug-induced psychosis due to methamphetamine use. At this time, he was brought to the hospital by SAPOL after jumping a service station counter and trying to hide. In the Emergency Department he was extremely agitated and absconded, however he then entered the hospital’s psychiatric ward asking for help. He was given sedative medication and respond well to this. Once recovered he provided an account that following three days of methamphetamine use he began experiencing numerous frightening psychotic experiences, including hallucinations of gods and higher powers who were angry at him and seeing evil spirits. Further, in December 2020 he presented to the Royal Adelaide Hospital with methamphetamine and Suboxone intoxication. There were no symptoms pf psychosis and he was quickly returned to custody. During Dr Burgess’ interview with Mr Fieldhouse, he asked him about his own perception of the risk he posed. Mr Fieldhouse responded:…he does not see himself as a danger to the community. He reported that there were several errors in the Extended Supervision Order paperwork and said that because of the errors. They made me out to be a danger in the community. In his report Dr Burgess identified drug and alcohol abuse as one of Mr Fieldhouse’s greatest criminogenic risk factors. He explained the interconnection between Mr Fieldhouse’s substance abuse and his offending in the following manner:Mr Fieldhouse’s history of substance use is long and varied. I would make particular note of alcohol use and amphetamine use. Both these substances have a well-known association with violence and offending. In Mr Fieldhouse’s case, it is notable that his September 2013 offences of aggravated assault and aggravated theft occurred in the context of alcohol intoxication. His index offence occurred following a morning of drinking and in a relationship with substance use (although it is unclear the extent to which Mr Fieldhouse himself was using amphetamines at the time of his offence). He has additionally presented to hospital twice with high levels of agitation and aggression in the setting of methamphetamine use. Mr Fieldhouse presents with only limited insight into the risk that intoxication pose, as demonstrated by his continued use whilst incarcerated and on parole. Further, in attempting to address his substance use, Mr Fieldhouse appeared focused on substituting his illicit substance use for prescribed Suboxone to allow him to continue to use some substance “to have fun”. He appeared to have little other adaptive strategies to avoid drug use.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Mr Fieldhouse described being proactive in seeking out medication to assist with his mental health issues. He explained:[12]Yeah, because I went and seen him and I said ‘Listen, I don’t think I’m doing too good again’, and I want to address this issue as well, I don’t want to keep getting in trouble. Like the stuff that I’m getting in trouble for, I’m not actually out trying to do crime like, do you know what I mean? Like I don’t actually want to be in gaol all the time. Like do you know what I mean? I think it is a lot to do now, I’m starting to get a bit older and realise that a lot of it is probably to do with mental health and perhaps substance abuse, you know. I don’t want to be doing that stuff any more, like you know.And further:[13]Yeah, I don’t like - it’s still the early stages, so like we’re still - because I think it’s more the psychosis, you know what I mean? I’m not too sure. But I think Dr Burgess said if I could stay in Yatala, I would see him again in a few weeks, the doctor said, to check up on me, but I’m not sure whether I get out, I don’t know. I’ll probably - if I could I would probably still work with him because I’ve been working with him, do you know what I mean?[12] 18 December 2024 T8-9.[13] 18 December 2024 T9.Consideration It is not disputed that Mr Fieldhouse has mental health issues for which he needs to receive medication and treatment. Regardless of whether I grant the application for a CDO, Mr Fieldhouse will be released into the community on 13 March 2025. The community is best protected by Mr Fieldhouse receiving appropriate treatment and support that will assist him to cease offending. Mr Fieldhouse has demonstrated that he can comply with an ESO when appropriate levels of supports are in place. Mr Fieldhouse is currently prescribed with medication that he appears to be compliant in taking. I am told that there is employment available to Mr Fieldhouse with the Frontline Recruitment Agency. He has a friend who works for that business and that same friend has offered to support and assist him getting to and from work. This is a complex matter, in that I fully accept that Mr Fieldhouse has repeatedly demonstrated the patten of behaviour alleged by the Attorney-General. He no doubt has pre-existing mental health issues that are exacerbated when he uses drugs, resulting is risk taking psychotic episodes. However, Mr Fieldhouse cannot lawfully be kept in custody past 13 March 2025. At the moment Mr Fieldhouse is taking medication and showing a level of insight into his mental health needs that has not previously been present. If released on an ESO, he will have the support of a Supervising Officer, in the context of also having the offer of support from a friend and a job available to him. It is also open to me, on an application made by the Attorney-General, to vary the ESO conditions such that they provide Mr Fieldhouse with more tailored support. One of the further additional conditions suggested by the Attorney-General is home detention with electronic monitoring. In my view, for Mr Fieldhouse, such a condition would be too restrictive, counterproductive and would set him up to fail. There are better means by which to appropriately afford the community greater protection.