Attorney-General (SA) v Jackson - [2024] SASC 75

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal: Application)

ATTORNEY-GENERAL (SA) v JACKSON
[2024] SASC 75
Judgment of the Honourable Chief Justice Kourakis
3 June 2024
CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - POST-CUSTODIAL ORDERS - OTHER TYPES OF POST-CUSTODIAL ORDERS
CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - SENTENCING ORDERS - ORDERS AND DECLARATIONS RELATING TO SERIOUS OR VIOLENT OFFENDERS OR DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDERS - DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDER - GENERALLY
This was an application for a continuing detention order against the respondent, pursuant to s 18(2) of the Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA).
Following the expiration of a term of imprisonment for two counts of serious sexual offending, and informed by a number of prior convictions for serious sexual offending, an extended supervision was imposed on the respondent for a term of 5 years. The terms of that extended supervision order, as varied by the Parole Board, obliged the respondent, inter alia, to comply with his obligations as a registrable offender under the Child Sex Offenders Registration Act 2006 (SA) and not to commit any further criminal offences. Subsequently, the respondent was remanded in custody in November 2023 on a Parole Board warrant, issued upon the discovery of multiple breaches of the respondent’s obligations as a registrable offender and extended supervision order. Those breaches, inter alia, included the respondent surreptitiously undertaking employment at a registered NDIS Provider and maintaining social media accounts and email addresses undeclared to police.
On his application for the imposition of a continuing detention order, the applicant contended that, in light of the respondent’s history of serious sexual offending and non-compliance with supervisory regimes, such an order conduced toward ensuring the safety of the community. The applicant further relied on expert medical evidence diagnosing the respondent with a series of mental illnesses that manifested in duplicitous, deceitful, and entitled behaviour, and observing that the respondent had not complied with medical treatment while on release in the community. Against this, the respondent contended that the safety of the community could be ensured by varying conditions of the pre-existing extended supervision order.
Held, granting the application for a continuing detention:
1.An application for a continuing detention order should proceed in much the same way as charges for criminal or disciplinary offences do, including by way of proper particularisation of any breaches of an extended supervision order and the adducing of evidence in admissible form, so that the respondent is accorded procedural fairness and so that the application is supported by admissible evidence.
2.The respondent had breached the terms of his extended supervision order on each occasion alleged and particularised by the applicant. Accordingly, and in light of the expert medical evidence opining on the risk that the respondent posed to the community of further serious sexual offending, a continuing detention order for a period of one year ought to be made against the respondent.

Child Sex Offenders Registration Act 2006 (SA) s 44(1); Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 48, s 49; Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA)…

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 Jackson

Details

AGLC: Attorney-General (SA) v Jackson [2024] SASC 75
Case: [2024] SASC 75
Decision Date: 3 June 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Attorney-General (SA) v Jackson involved the imposition of a continuing detention order (CDO) against Mr Jackson. The Supreme Court of South Australia was tasked with determining whether the risks associated with Mr Jackson’s potential to reoffend were such that he should be subject to a CDO. The primary concern was Mr Jackson’s history of non-compliance with treatment and supervision conditions, coupled with his potential to commit serious sexual offences.

The court had to decide whether the evidence presented warranted the imposition of a CDO, considering the imminent risks identified by the expert witness, Dr Raeside. The key issues were whether Mr Jackson’s behaviour and history justified the imposition of a CDO for the protection of the community and whether such an order would adequately address the risks he posed. The court needed to balance the necessity of protecting the community against the benefits of rehabilitating Mr Jackson and reintegrating him into society under controlled conditions.

The court found that the risks identified by Dr Raeside warranted the imposition of a CDO. Dr Raeside’s evidence about Mr Jackson’s potential to reoffend and his history of non-compliance with treatment and supervision conditions was compelling. The court concluded that a moderate period of detention was necessary to allow Mr Jackson to take anti-libidinal medication, if he chose to do so, and to ensure he fully understood the consequences of his actions. The court also noted that a CDO would provide greater assurance that Mr Jackson would not reoffend upon release. Therefore, the court imposed a CDO for a period of one year, starting from 3 June 2024.

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

Dr Raeside did not change his opinion, in any material respect, after cross-examination on this application.Conclusion For those reasons, I will make a CDO. The imminent risks of which Dr Raeside testified require something more than a very short period of detention. It is necessary that Mr Jackson be detained for a sufficiently long time for him to continue taking the anti‑libidinal medication, if that is what he chooses to do, whilst he is in custody. A moderate period of detention is also necessary so that Mr Jackson comes to appreciate fully that his poor compliance with conditions calculated to minimise risk will have seriously adverse consequences. It is necessary so that he comes to appreciate that his attempts to deceive will not be successful. Those reflections conduce toward the protection of the community in so far as they discourage further deceitful behaviour and offending. A period of continuing detention is necessary to protect the community in that period, but also to provide greater assurance that Mr Jackson will not offend when he is released. On the other hand, it is necessary to work toward Mr Jackson’s release back into the community at some point. It is best that those attempts start in a carefully confined and controlled manner before his current extended supervision order ends by the effluxion of time. A period of closely supervised return to the community will better inform future decisions on whether or not to impose a further extended supervision order, its duration and its conditions. For those reasons, I impose a CDO for a period of one year from today’s date, 3 June 2024.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.