Attorney-General (SA) v Hunt - [2025] SASC 93

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal: Application)

ATTORNEY-GENERAL (SA) v HUNT
[2025] SASC 93
Ruling of the Honourable Justice McDonald (ex tempore)
3 June 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 by the Attorney-General for the respondent to be the subject of an Extended Supervision Order (ESO) on the basis that he is a high-risk offender, pursuant to s 7 of the Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA).
The respondent is currently the subject of an Interim Supervision Order (ISO) which was imposed on 4 November 2024, pending the determination of these proceedings.
There are two limbs that must be satisfied, in order to impose an ESO:
1.   The respondent must be a high-risk offender. More specifically, the respondent must be a serious sexual offender who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment in respect of a serious sexual offence; and
2.   On the material before the Court, it must be established that the respondent poses an appreciable risk to the safety of the community if not supervised.
There was no contest as to the satisfaction of the first limb of the test. There was, however, contention as to the satisfaction of the second limb.
The respondent opposed the imposition of an ESO. The respondent submitted that there are sufficient safeguards in place through other means to protect the community, including his NDIS supports, psychological counselling and the respondent’s personal commitment to abstaining from alcohol and drugs and living a law-abiding lifestyle.
The Attorney-General accepts that an ESO order should only interfere with the respondent’s liberty to the extent and for as long as necessary to protect the community from the risk that he poses, however maintains that the risk is such that an ESO is required.
The Court acknowledged that the respondent has acted upon his mental health care plan and commenced a domestic violence program. The Court also acknowledged the respondent’s continued abstinence from drugs and alcohol as positive developments. However, the primary consideration in determining the application is the protection of the community.
In this case, the evidence established that while there were some positive signs from the respondent, his risk remains high, absent the imposition of an ESO.
Held; application granted.
1.   The respondent is to be subject to an ESO for a period of nine months.
Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA) s 7, s 7(3), referred to.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL (SA) v HUNT
[2025] SASC 93
Criminal: Application

McDONALD J (ex tempore): This is an application by the Attorney-General for Trevor Hunt to be the subject of an Extended Supervision Order (‘ESO’), pursuant to s.7 of the Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA). On 4 November 2024, over the opposition of Mr Hunt, I made an order that he be the subject of an Interim Supervision Order (‘ISO’), pending the determination of this application. The ISO included conditions requiring that Mr Hunt be the subject of electronic monitoring and that he not loiter at locations at which children regularly present.
In order to succeed on the application for an ESO, the Attorney-General must establish that Mr Hunt is a high-risk offender. Relevantly here, that he is a serious sexual offender who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment in respect of a serious sexual offence. There is no contest as to the satisfaction of this limb of the test, in that, it is not disputed that 21 March 2022, Mr Hunt was sentenced to three years, 10 months and 26 days imprisonment for various offences including two counts of communicating with a child with the intention of making the child amenable to sexual activity.
It is in respect of the second limb of the test that the contest lies, that is, whether on the material before me, it can be established that Mr Hunt poses an appreciable risk to the safety of the community if not supervised.
Mr Hunt opposes the imposition of an ESO. Essentially, it was his submission that there are sufficient safeguards in place through other means to protect the community, including his NDIS supports, psychological counselling and Mr Hunt’s personal commitment to abstaining from alcohol and drugs and living a law-abiding lifestyle.
The Attorney-General accepts that an ESO should only interfere with Mr Hunt’s liberty to the extent, and for as long as necessary, to protect the community from the risk that he poses, however maintains that the risk is such that an ESO is required.
Background
In order to put the competing submissions into context, it is necessary to set out some of the details of Mr Hunt’s prior offending, and in particular the offences that result in him being liable for the imposition of an ESO.
Mr Hunt was first convicted of offences of violence in 1997 when he was 20 years of age. His first serious offence of violence took place in 2009, when he was convicted of and sentenced for an assault that was aggravated by the use of a weapon. In 2013, Mr Hunt received a four-month suspended sentence for an aggravated assault against a family member on the basis that he entered into a good behaviour bond. Mr Hunt breached that bond. In 2015, Mr Hunt received a further suspended sentence for three counts of damaging property. There was a further conviction for damaging property in 2019.
In 2022, Mr Hunt was sentenced to three years, 10 months and 26 days imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years, one month and 15 days for two counts of communicating with a child to make them amenable to sexual activity, aggravated assault causing harm and breaching bail. It should be noted that this was the fifth occasion on which Mr Hunt had been convicted of breaching bail.
As I said, the index offences are the two counts of communicating with a child to make them amenable to sexual activity. The circumstances of those offences are that between 1 November 2019 and 24 November 2019, Mr Hunt communicated over social media platforms with someone who held themselves out as a 14-year-old girl. This person was in fact an undercover police officer. The conversations were sexually explicit. Mr Hunt sent numerous pornographic images, including photographs of his erect penis, and made several invitations to engage in sexual activity. He discussed meeting in Adelaide.
Mr Hunt said he was 20-years-old when he was in fact 42.
Mr Hunt was arrested and charged with these offences, and on 10 December 2019, was granted bail with home detention conditions. In July 2020, his bail conditions were varied to remove home detention, however there remained conditions that he not drink alcohol or have contact with any person under the age of 18 years.
At that time, Mr Hunt was in a relationship with a woman who had an 11-year-old son and an eight-year-old daughter. He was also the subject of another bail agreement which contained a condition that prohibited him from attending at his partner’s address. Despite his various bail conditions, Mr Hunt moved in with his partner.
On 12 September 2020, Mr Hunt was intoxicated and left alone with his partner’s children. He became angry with the female child and hit her with a belt with a metal buckle attached. This caused her to suffer injuries. It was this conduct that became the subject of the charge of aggravated assault cause harm.
At the time, Mr Hunt was in breach of three of his bail conditions across two bail agreements.
After being sentenced, Mr Hunt was not granted parole and he served his entire head sentence.
Mr Hunt’s institutional behaviour was poor, with records indicating that he engaged in abusive and violent behaviour to both staff and other inmates.
On a more positive note, whilst in custody, Mr Hunt participated in the “Our Way Our Choice” course. This is a course designed for Aboriginal people, to assist them getting back on track with cultural connections and history.
Mr Hunt also undertook and completed the SBC- me program. In an affidavit provided to the court, Mr Hunt said that he believes that during that course, he worked hard to improve his thoughts, feelings and behaviour. He said although there were times that he thought about quitting the program, “there were lots of tears, hard work, repetitive questioning, staying focused and taking ownership” of his offending. In describing his participation in the program, Mr Hunt said ‘As the months went by, I continued to maintain a constructive, positive, punctual and well-organised attitude, and remained a positive member of the SBC-me group’.
This does not, however, accord with what was reported in the SBC-me treatment assessment summary. Whilst the facilitators of that course observed that Mr Hunt made some progress in modifying his behaviour, his capacity to demonstrate sustained change was considered to be an ongoing concern during the program. Without endeavouring to be comprehensive, I use the following examples to illustrate the point.
The facilitators of the SBC-me raised concerns about Mr Hunt maintaining an ambivalent attitude towards his offending, and continuing to minimise or justify aspects of his behaviour. Of particular note, Mr Hunt continued to deny that he had misrepresented his age whilst communicating online. At various times he claimed he could not see the messages he was sending to the victim because his phone screen was cracked, that the phone had used a pre-fill or auto-correct function to send the text messages, and that he was sending messages to so many different people that he was not aware of what he was sending. Mr Hunt’s narrative of events shifted somewhat throughout his engagement in the program, however he consistently claimed that he had been aware that the victim was an undercover police officer and that he had sent the sexual messages to antagonise them.
Mr Hunt was also noted to maintain problematic masculine beliefs that encouraged a view that he would use violence to resolve interpersonal issues or be seen as weak. When pressed to consider less aggressive and more assertive means to address the issue, he became dismissive towards facilitators. The facilitators suggested that it appeared that Mr Hunt remained attached to his reputation as a man who was good at fighting.
As is apparent from this summary, there is a considerable dispute between the account provided by Mr Hunt as compared to that given by the facilitators of the SBC-me program.
On 5 November 2024, Mr Hunt was released from custody. As I have said, that was under the conditions of an ISO. Mr Hunt breached the conditions of the ISO on numerous occasions. All of the breaches appear to have related to condition 15, which prohibited Mr Hunt from loitering in the vicinity of locations that children frequent. The places attended by Mr Hunt included beaches, and a reserve that was located near to a basketball court. When questioned about these breaches, Mr Hunt explained that he had a dog that he would walk, and he did not appreciate that he could not attend at these locations for that purpose.
A further issue arose while Mr Hunt was the subject of the ISO, and that related to his participation in the “Road to Redemption” program. This is a program that provides vocational training for Aboriginal people exiting custody. It provides intensive training and then future employment opportunities. Mr Hunt was required to attend this program, and after some initial appointments, at which he was accepted into the program, he developed a conflict with one of the staff running the course.
Again, there are conflicting accounts as to how this came account. Mr Hunt’s current position is that he has adequate skills and training and therefore does not need to participate in the “Road to Redemption” program.
Expert evidence
On 4 November 2024, I made an order that a prescribed health professional examine Mr Hunt, and report back to the court with an assessment of the likelihood of him committing a further serious violent sexual offence, as required under s 7(3) of the Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA). That report was prepared by Jane Farrin, a clinical psychologist. Ms Farrin also supplemented and further elaborated on that report by giving evidence.
There was five central overlapping themes that ran through Ms Farrin’s report and her evidence. These were:
·substance abuse
·responsiveness to treatment
·attitude to prior offending, (in particular sexual offending)
·risk of reoffending, and
·other protective mechanisms available to Mr Hunt.
Substance abuse
There is no doubt that one of the most significant risk factors for Mr Hunt is substance abuse, and in particular alcohol.
In her report, Ms Farrin set out Mr Hunt’s account of his history of substance abuse. Mr Hunt told her that he commenced drinking alcohol at about 15 years of age. He said that until a few months before the index offences, he was not a heavy drinker, although he admitted that he had attended at drug and alcohol counselling “on and off” a few times.
Mr Hunt used cannabis heavily between the ages of 15 to 22, however reduced his usage when he commenced working in the Mining Industry, because of the requirements for regular testing.
In 2007, Mr Hunt was involved in a serious car accident, and required hospitalisation for about nine months. During this time, he became dependent on morphine, and upon his release, self-medicated using cannabis.
Mr Hunt told Ms Farrin that at the time of the index offending, he was drinking heavily, and that he was in “a dark space” that he could not break out of. He said that he was drinking and using cannabis at the time that he committed the offences. As I have already mentioned, he was also intoxicated at the time that he assaulted his partner’s child.
In her evidence, Ms Farrin maintained that alcohol and substance abuse remains a risk factor for Mr Hunt. She explained that there appears to have been a variety factors that led Mr Hunt to substance abuse. These included the serious physical and mental issues arising from the car accident. He had resultant employment issues, and relationship issues. Ms Farrin also raised some concerns about the culture of alcohol use when Mr Hunt was working in a fly in, fly out basis in the Mining Industry.
It was Ms Farrin’s evidence that Mr Hunt appears to so far be successfully grappling with this risk factor, in that since his release, all of his drug and alcohol tests have come back as negative. However, she expressed the firm view that Mr Hunt would benefit from some relapse prevention intervention, so that he can develop a plan to minimise any risk in respect of future use, or exposure to alcohol.
Receptiveness to treatment
In her report, Ms Farrin discussed some of the issues raised about Mr Hunt’s participation and engagement in the SBC-me program. Ms Farrin noted that when challenged about his conduct, he engaged in passive-aggressive behaviour, and had a tendency to deflect blame onto others. He struggled to deal with criticisms and challenges, and threatened to leave the program on multiple occasions. He also struggled to behave in a helpful manner, particularly with female facilitators. Ms Farrin observed that, amongst the recommendations arising out of Mr Hunt’s participation in the SBC-me program, were the following:
·That if he was considered for an ESO, the focus of the ESO should include treatment for domestic and family violence, and substance abuse. Structured supervision may help him to engage in the relevant treatment.
·That he should be considered for an ESO, because of his previous failure to abide by supervisory conditions, it would be unlikely that he would engage with relevant services in the community if he was not mandated to do so.
·That he be regularly drug tested.
·That he attend treatment for his use of domestic and family violence.
·That he participate in substance abuse counselling.
In her evidence Ms Farrin was taken back to the topic of Mr Hunt’s participation in the SBC-me program. She reinforced that the key concerns arising from that program were Mr Hunt’s passive-aggressive approach to the facilitators, his limited degree of engagement, and his involvement in an incident during it that resulted in him not being able to participate in aspects of it.
Mr Farrin also observed that the SBC-me post-treatment report set out a number of outstanding treatment targets, which she suggested were critical for Mr Hunt to address, particularly in relation to his risk of perpetrating domestic violence, in addition to drug and alcohol risk factors.
Attitude to prior offending and in particular sexual offending
The greatest concern raised by Ms Farrin about Mr Hunt’s risk of reoffending was Mr Hunt’s continued failure to demonstrate insight and take full responsibility for his prior offending. This appeared to be underpinned by a more general negative attitude towards women, and his relationships with them.
In her report, Ms Farrin set out the history of events leading up to the index offences, as provided by Mr Hunt. He said that his physical health had deteriorated, and as had his relationship with his partner. He was drinking heavily, and he had commenced online dating, and was also “going away on the weekends and meeting with women.” Mr Hunt said that this commenced about three to four months before the index offences, and that “getting recognition from ladies” helped him. He explained that he accessed a lot of dating sites, and that it was normal for him to be speaking to 30 to 40 people at once.
Mr Hunt said that, through this process, he became aware of many false profiles, and it was in this context that he came across the profile of the 14-year-old, who was in fact a police officer. He claimed that, whilst the profile said that the female was 14, “he did not take it seriously.” Mr Hunt admitted that he spoke to the female on and off, two or three times, but said that he was on “autopilot sending photos”, and that he “let himself down.” He said that the female had said that she wanted to meet him on four occasions, but he did not answer back, because he was not interested in meeting.
I pause there to observe that this is inconsistent with the basis upon which Mr Hunt was sentenced. In her sentencing remarks, the sentencing judge said: ‘I accept that whilst you tried to make arrangements to meet, you did not take any concrete steps towards that.’ Suggesting that Mr Hunt did in fact take steps to arrange to meet with the 14-year-old girl.
Mr Hunt told Ms Farrin, that throughout these communications, he believed it was a false profile, and “a setup” due to him having been in previous conflict with the police. He said he continued to engage with the profile even though he did not take it seriously. Mr Hunt told Ms Farrin that he was not in the right frame of mind at the time, and that he was always blind drunk.
Based on Mr Hunt’s account of his offending, in her report Ms Farrin described him as presenting with very poor insight into his history of sexual offending. She said that he struggled to take responsibility, blaming the police for harassing him, and he minimised and justified his behaviour, claiming that he knew the account was false, and said that he had no intention of meeting with the individual. This is of course all at odds with the basis upon which Mr Hunt was sentenced.

In her evidence, Ms Farrin expanded upon her concerns about Mr Hunt’s explanation for his offending. She said that there were a lot of contradictions in the information that he provided, which was consistent with the other material that she had received. At times Mr Hunt has admitted to the offending, other times he has denied it, on other occasions he has minimized it.
When asked whether she could make any comment on the reason why Mr Hunt maintains the narrative about knowing that the account was false, Ms Farrin responded: ‘I don’t know for certain, but I’m assuming it assists him in not taking responsibility for that behaviour, and justifying that behaviour to himself and others.’
Risk of reoffending
It was Mr Hunt’s failure to take responsibility that was central to the next theme in Ms Farrin’s report and her evidence, and that is Mr Hunt’s risk of reoffending, which is of course central to the application under consideration.
I will start first with Ms Farrin’s report. In her report Ms Farrin expressed the opinion that Mr Hunt remained at risk of committing another serious sexual offence, and will continue to pose an appreciable risk to the safety of the community if not appropriately supervised. This was based on Mr Hunt’s behaviour in custody, his poor insight into his history of sexual offending, his failure to demonstrate learnings and behavioural changes as a result of having participated in the SBC-me program, and that at the time of writing the report, three months after Mr Hunt’s release, he had not yet engaged in substance abuse treatment or domestic and family violence intervention.
In her evidence, Ms Farrin further elaborated upon the basis of her assessment of the risk that Mr Hunt poses. She said that the risk that Mr Hunt poses to the community is broader than his risk of sexual reoffending. She explained that there is evidence of domestic violence offending in three of Mr Hunt’s four past relationships, however there had been no intervention up to that point in time, in relation to his domestic violence risk.
Returning to the concerns about further sexual offending, Ms Farrin raised Mr Hunt’s more general online behaviour with women, his attitude towards sex, and his engagement in the regular activity of going to the city and meeting with women. She said that in terms of his broader sexual activities, there are a number of further risk factors. Ms Farrin agreed that it was Mr Hunt’s attitude to women, and his attitude to sexual activity with women, that sit behind or alongside of the actual offending.
Other protective mechanisms available
Having expressed a view about the risk that Mr Hunt poses to the community, particularly in relation to committing a further serious sexual offence, Ms Farrin considered the impact of other resources and supports available to Mr Hunt in the community. This was an important aspect of Ms Truscott’s submissions in opposition to the making of the ESO.
I have dealt already with Ms Farrin’s observations about Mr Hunt having participated in the SBC-me course, and the limited impact that has had on his risk of reoffending. Ms Farrin also expressed concern about the failure of Mr Hunt to take the opportunity of the Road to Redemption program, on the basis that it would be a particularly protective program for him, not only in providing vocational training and future employment opportunities, but also in providing him with a structured day.
As I have already mentioned, despite Mr Hunt’s abstinence from alcohol, Ms Farrin expressed the view that he would benefit from some form of relapse prevention intervention, and intervention in relation to his risk of further domestic violence.
Ms Farrin was asked to make comment on the fact that since he had been released from custody, Mr Hunt had obtained a mental health care plan. She responded that it was concerning that despite having the plan, in the six months that Mr Hunt had spent in the community since then, and given the funding in his NDIS plan for psychological counselling, Mr Hunt had not followed through and sought out any psychological intervention.
Ms Farrin said that given that no action had been taken on the mental health plan, she would be skeptical around Mr Hunt engaging an intervention absent a court order. Similarly, whilst it is positive that Mr Hunt has funding for supports through his NDIS plan, he could choose to disengage with those services at any point in time. Ms Farrin also made the point that the NDIS plan does not address his criminogenic risk factors, such as drug and alcohol abuse and domestic violence offending.
Ms Farrin was also asked whether in her view the risk posed by Mr Hunt was reduced as a consequence of him being on the Australian National Child Offender Register (‘ANCOR’), with all of the attendant restrictions. Ms Farrin responded that whilst the ANCOR scheme monitors compliance with its conditions, it does not have any ability to direct someone to participate in any intervention to address criminological risk factors, as could occur under an ESO.
In summary, it was the evidence of Ms Farrin that whilst there were some positive signs from Mr Hunt, his risk remains high, absent the imposition of an ESO.
Further developments
Since Ms Farrin gave evidence, there have been some further developments for Mr Hunt. On the 21st of May 2025, Mr Hunt commenced a domestic violence program with KWY Aboriginal Corporation. KWY was established as a result of conversations with local Aboriginal Elders around the need for Aboriginal-led responses for families, addressing health, wellbeing and safety. The course runs for two hours a week over six weeks.
In addition to this, Mr Hunt has now acted upon his mental health care plan. He was referred to Sonder, who have in turn arranged for him to become part of the “Partners Towards Wellbeing” program. This program will provide him with Dialectical Behaviour therapy, aimed at exploring ways of interrupting his substance abuse behaviour by learning mindfulness and mental health awareness skills, and implementing strategies designed to prevent relapse. This program involves both one-on-one and group sessions, and it is intended that it will be ongoing. Mr Hunt has commenced this program and has been allocated a psychologist.
These are both positive developments, and complement Mr Hunt’s continued abstinence from drugs and alcohol.
These considerations however need to be measured against Ms Farrin’s opinion about the level of risk Mr Hunt poses, his poor level of insight into his prior offending, which manifested in him gaining little benefit from the SBC-me program, and his delay in accessing appropriate supports once released from custody.
I must also bear in mind that the primary consideration in determining this application is the protection of the community.
Conclusion
In all of the circumstances I find that it is appropriate to impose an ESO, however, the conditions and duration of such an order should reflect Mr Hunt’s particular circumstances and the progress that he has made.
I will deal firstly with the conditions of the order. I have been provided with draft conditions by the Attorney-General. I note that there are no longer conditions that prohibit Mr Hunt from loitering in locations that children tend to frequent. The removal of these conditions reflects the nature of the risk posed by Mr Hunt, given his prior offending, and the fact that he is the subject of the ANCOR conditions. In my view it was appropriate to remove those conditions.
There, however, remains a condition which requires Mr Hunt to be electronically monitored for a period of three months unless otherwise directed by the Parole Board. Given the other conditions of the ESO, and in particular the removal of the loitering conditions, I see little utility in electronic monitoring. I also bear in mind that it is suggested that the monitoring take place over three months, in circumstances in which Mr Hunt has already completed a period of six months of electronic monitoring under the ISO. I do not propose to include the condition for electronic monitoring.
I turn then to the duration of the supervision order. During submissions Mr Truscott made the very valid point that “at some point he is going to be off the order in whatever shape or form. At some point he is going to be back in the community with the protection of the ANCOR conditions.”
The reality of the circumstances presenting to Mr Hunt at the moment are that he has remained drug and alcohol free whilst under supervision for over six months. He has now put in place appropriate supports and services to attempt to reduce his criminogenic risk factors and, in all likelihood, will at sometime in the not too distant future find himself in the community without the restrictions of an ESO.
I see this period on an ESO as a step down for Mr Hunt. On that basis in my view an ESO of 18 months is too long. I instead propose to make the order for the duration of nine months.