Attorney-General (SA) v Lawrie - [2020] SASC 216

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal: Application)
ATTORNEY-GENERAL (SA) v LAWRIE
[2020] SASC 216
Judgment of The Honourable Justice Livesey
4 November 2020
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 - SERIOUS OR VIOLENT OFFENDER
Pursuant to s 7(1) of the Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA) (“the Act”) the Attorney-General made an application for the respondent to be subject to an extended supervision order for a period of two years. On 5 September 2020 the respondent was released from prison after having served a sentence of imprisonment for a number of offences including aggravated drive dangerously to escape police pursuit. Since then he has been subject to an interim supervision order made pursuant to s 9 of the Act.
The respondent conceded that he is a high risk offender within the meaning of the Act and that he poses an appreciable risk to the safety of the community if not supervised under an extended supervision order. The respondent’s opposition centred on particular conditions of the Applicant’s proposed order.
Held, allowing the application:
1. the respondent is to be subject to an extended supervision order for a period of two years commencing on 14 October 2020 with conditions including that he be subject to a curfew and electronic monitoring for a period of six months.
2. the condition preventing contact or association with any member of an outlaw motorcycle club is varied to exclude a particular person who appears to be the respondent's only community support, where there is no evidence of any encouragement to engage in unlawful activity, and only positive interaction and support.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 19AC, s 21, s 83D, s 134, s 270A; Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA) s 7, s 9, s 10; Motor Vehicles Act 1959 (SA) s 91, referred to.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL (SA) v LAWRIE
[2020] SASC 216
Criminal: Application

LIVESEY J: The Attorney-General has applied for an extended supervision order with respect to the respondent, Charles Ronald Lawrie, pursuant to s 7 of the Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA) (the High Risk Offenders Act or the Act).
On 5 September 2020 Mr Lawrie was released from prison after having served a sentence of imprisonment of two years, one month and 10 days for aggravated drive dangerously to escape police pursuit, assault causing harm, two counts of driving whilst disqualified, two counts of theft and attempted theft. Since his release from prison, Mr Lawrie has been subject to an interim supervision order made pursuant to s 9 of the Act. He was subsequently returned to prison on a Parole Board warrant after breaching his interim supervision order.
Whilst Mr Lawrie initially opposed the making of an extended supervision order, his opposition was subsequently confined to only some of the conditions sought.
On 14 October 2020 I granted the Attorney’s application and ordered that Mr Lawrie be subject to an extended supervision order for a period of two years. My reasons follow.
Material received
The Attorney’s application was heard on 14 October 2020. In support of the Attorney’s application I received and have considered the following material:
1Letter to the Clinical Director of the Forensic Mental Health Service dated 24 June 2020 (exhibit AG1);
2Report of Dr Craig W J Raeside dated 8 July 2020 (exhibit AG2);
3Second report of Dr Craig W J Raeside dated 27 August 2020 (exhibit AG3);
4Affidavit of Angela Catherine Marsh sworn on 27 May 2020 (exhibit AG4); and
5Affidavit of Victoria Jean Montandon affirmed on 12 October 2020 (exhibit AG5)
There was no objection to any of the material being received by the Court.
Dr Craig Raeside, a forensic psychiatrist, was also called by the Attorney to give evidence. He was cross-examined by Mr Lawrie.
By the time Dr Raeside gave evidence, the instructions of Mr Lawrie’s legal representative had been terminated. Mr Lawrie did not seek an adjournment. He was able to articulate his case when questioning Dr Raeside.
Personal circumstances
Mr Lawrie is an 28-year-old single Aboriginal man. He was born in Adelaide and raised around Maralinga by his grandparents. To this day, he identifies his Nan as a source of support.
Mr Lawrie was removed from his mother’s care shortly after birth. He has never lived with his parents and does not know much about his father. All he recalls is “violence when they were together”. It appears that Mr Lawrie has not seen his mother since 2013 and his father since 2008. He considers his mother a negative influence. His two younger brothers have experience with the criminal justice system and have also been incarcerated.
For much of Mr Lawrie’s life his mother has been incarcerated. Currently she is on parole following an 11-year sentence for manslaughter. She has had a lifelong history of trauma and abuse, which included early family breakdown, interrupted schooling, early onset of drug and alcohol abuse, and recurrent offending. His mother had been in a very violent relationship with Mr Lawrie’s father which had resulted in her hospitalisation on several occasions with significant injuries, including facial bone fractures.
Mr Lawrie’s schooling was marred by disruption and violent behaviour. He was truant frequently. He would get into trouble at school for talking, getting involved in school-yard fights and he stabbed a teacher on one occasion. From around the age of eight, Mr Lawrie would break into canteens at school and steal bikes.
Mr Lawrie only reached year 6 but undertook additional schooling whilst in juvenile detention. The education that Mr Lawrie received whilst in custody meant that by the end of 2007 (aged 15) he had reached early primary school level. This is consistent with an assessment of a borderline intellectual ability, with an IQ of 70‑77. Whilst he says that he can read but not write, during the hearing on 14 October 2020 Mr Lawrie said that he could not read one of the documents.
Mr Lawrie was previously diagnosed with a conduct disorder in childhood, and then developed an antisocial personality disorder marked by impulsive, aggressive, and irresponsible behaviour with limited remorse about his offending. I return to this later in my reasons.
At the age of nine, Mr Lawrie began drinking alcohol. Nevertheless, he describes himself as “not a daily drinker” and “he only had an occasional big drink at special celebrations”. He does not report having any past problems related to alcohol. It has not resulted in aggression or violence.
Mr Lawrie began smoking marijuana at the age of nine. He has described himself as being a regular, daily smoker of cannabis, although more so in his teenage years and less so now. He would never go out of his way to obtain cannabis and would only smoke it in the company of friends.
At times, he has also used minor tranquilisers and once tested positive to buprenorphine.
Then, at age of 11, Mr Lawrie began using amphetamines regularly, initially sniffing and smoking and then commencing intravenous use at the age of 12. Whilst this continued on and off for years, he preferred heroin during his teens due to its “sedating effect”. When in the community he would use heroin on a daily basis, at a cost of up to $500 a day. Later in life, however, it had reached the point where his previous ex-partner, B, said that he had to choose between heroin or her and her daughters. He stopped taking heroin. However he continued using amphetamines, even in recent times, smoking up to $75 worth each day.
Between 2008 and 2020, whilst incarcerated, Mr Lawrie tested positive to illicit substances on 12 occasions and refused to provide a sample on nine occasions.
Mr Lawrie has never been in paid employment. He has largely been in receipt of the Newstart allowance. However, in 2019 he was employed in the metal shop whilst in prison.
Mr Lawrie reported that his first significant relationship was with B, the mother of his daughter. This initially ended after a couple of years. He was then with another woman for a couple of years. He reports that relationship as being “good” because “she helped him a lot” and was supportive of him. Once she began taking drugs, things changed. He then had a short-term relationship with another woman prior to returning to B. They were together for three or four years before “she kicked him out”. He thought that he had been doing well whilst with B, but recommenced taking drugs when the relationship ended.
Mr Lawrie continues to maintain contact with B. Although there is an intervention order in place, because of Mr Lawrie’s previous verbal abuse of her, the order allows contact so long as he does not intimidate or threaten B. She is the mother of three children whom Mr Lawrie refers to as his stepchildren. He also has a daughter aged 11 with whom he has had only has occasional contact when not using drugs.
Criminal antecedents
Mr Lawrie’s criminal antecedents report occupies six pages. It commences with offending in 2004 concerning, amongst other matters, common assault on a family member, interference with a motor vehicle, larceny, property damage and arson, as well as two counts of assaulting police. For this offending, no conviction was recorded and a bond to be of good behaviour for 12 months with supervision was imposed.
Thereafter, Mr Lawrie has regularly appeared before the criminal courts. His offending includes motor vehicle offences, failures to comply with bail agreements and various forms of assaults. However, he was not imprisoned until 2011 which was for an assault (four days’ imprisonment). Thereafter, Mr Lawrie commenced receiving regular sentences of imprisonment.
During 2015 Mr Lawrie received two separate sentences of imprisonment for attempting to obstruct or pervert the course of justice, driving under disqualification (two years and nine months with a non-parole of one year and four months backdated from 23 November 2013) and hindering police and interfering with a motor vehicle without consent (two counts) (three years and three months with a non-parole period of one year and eight months also backdated from 23 November 2013).
During 2018 Mr Lawrie was convicted of contravening a term of an intervention order (for which he was discharged without penalty).
As mentioned earlier in these reasons, on 19 February 2019 Mr Lawrie was sentenced in the Magistrates Court to two years, one month and 10 days’ imprisonment for the following offences:[1]
1one count of aggravated drive dangerously to escape police pursuit, contrary to s 19AC(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) (CLCA);
2one count of assault cause harm, contrary to s 20(4) of the CLCA;
3two counts of drive under disqualification, contrary to s 91(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1959 (SA);
4two counts of theft, contrary to s 134 of the CLCA; and
5one count of attempted theft, contrary to s 134 and s 270A of the CLCA.
[1] Pursuant to s 26 of the Sentencing Act 2017 (SA).
The subject offending was addressed in extensive remarks on penalty delivered by Magistrate Dixon. As explained by the Magistrate, during March 2017, Mr Lawrie was stopped whilst driving a vehicle with expired registration at a time when he was disqualified from driving. Mr Lawrie had four prior convictions for driving whilst disqualified and had previously been imprisoned for that offence.
During November 2017 various valuable items were stolen in Brompton, including two motor vehicles (a Maserati and a BMW), jewellery, two Rolex watches, two wallets, cash, a Chinese passport and shoes, all with an approximate overall value exceeding $530,000.
Whilst it was not alleged that Mr Lawrie was involved in the trespass and theft in Brompton, Mr Lawrie was seen to be leaning into the stolen Maserati and then walking away from it. Still later, Mr Lawrie was seen driving the stolen BMW after which a police pursuit ensued. Whilst the vehicle was being driven at speeds in excess of 100 kilometres per hour, it collided with a roundabout and became airborne. Mr Lawrie left the BMW and entered a vehicle driven by a person who had slowed to take evasive action. Mr Lawrie attempted to steal that vehicle, hitting the driver to the side of the face. Mr Lawrie, however, fell onto the roadway and then ran away. He was arrested a short time later. One of the stolen Rolex watches was found following a search of Mr Lawrie.
Mr Lawrie’s case proceeded in the Magistrates Court by way of a s 22 Aboriginal sentencing conference, involving two Court Elders and a representative of the Aboriginal Sobriety Group, Mr Lawrie’s then legal representative, a police prosecutor and a prosecutor from the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
The Magistrate noted that, at the time of the offending, Mr Lawrie had been “kicked out” by his domestic partner and subjected to an intervention order. Without a place in which to live, Mr Lawrie had diverted to drug use. He was unable to find work because he was effectively unable to read or use computers. Nonetheless, he had cooperated with police.
The Magistrate expressed gratitude for the sentencing conference which assisted the Court to achieve a “just outcome in a culturally appropriate way” and, after noting reductions of up to 40 per cent on certain of the counts, he had regard to personal deterrence and “the need to send a message to the community that offending such as yours, which puts the community at risk, will be sternly punished, particularly when it comes against a significant background of prior like offending”. Mr Lawrie fell to be sentenced as a serious repeat offender under s 53 of the Sentencing Act 2017 (SA). When imposing penalty, the Magistrate emphasised that he must not lose sight of Mr Lawrie’s youth and expressed ambition to reform.
Mr Lawrie’s antecedents’ history includes episodes of poor compliance with community-based supervision orders, often bound up with illicit substance abuse involving cannabis, amphetamines and heroin. During 2018, 2019 (two occasions) and 2019 Mr Lawrie tested positive to illicit substances that had not been prescribed whilst he was in custody.
During July 2020 Mr Lawrie was interviewed by the Parole Board in connection with an application for release on parole before the expiration of his head sentence on 5 September 2020. The Deputy Presiding Member, Mr W Boucaut QC, reported in his reasons for refusing early release:
Mr Lawrie is said to be associated with criminals including member [sic] of outlawed motorcycle gangs.
Mr Lawrie was interviewed by the Parole Board on 1 July 2020. His attitude at interview was argumentative and aggressive. He constantly blamed others for his past bad behaviour. He gives the impression that he simply does not care about his offending and demonstrates no interest in changing his ways. In keeping with his bad attitude towards authority, he walked out of the interview with the Parole Board.
Mr Lawrie has a very obvious anti-authoritarian attitude and it is unfortunately very clear that he would represent an ongoing risk to the safety if [sic] community if he were to be released onto parole.
Thereafter it would seem that Mr Lawrie’s interaction with officers from the Department for Correctional Services (DCS) was problematic and, ultimately, little assistance could be provided to him regarding a range of matters, including accommodation. Mr Lawrie refused referrals to the Aboriginal Sobriety Group, the ALRM Prisoner Care Program and OARS.
By 14 September 2020 Mr Lawrie was in breach of various conditions of his interim supervision order because he was not obeying the reasonable directions of his Community Corrections officer. In addition, he had failed to attend for supervision as directed. He was noted to have frequently attended licensed hotels such as the Cooper’s Ale House and the Waterloo Station Hotel, albeit not for the purposes of consuming alcohol. Corrections also noted that Mr Lawrie was apparently well regarded and “looked after” by individuals whom it was believed were with an outlaw motorcycle gang.
By 14 September 2020 the Parole Board had issued a warrant for Mr Lawrie’s arrest and, by the time of the hearing on 14 October 2020, Mr Lawrie was again in custody.
Treatment and assessments received
Mr Lawrie was previously assessed by DCS as having a number of criminal and antisocial attitudes, including intimidating and controlling behaviours, poor anger management skills, poor problem-solving skills, disregard for societal (and institutional) norms, a pattern of generalised problems given his limited education, regular contact with law enforcement agencies, and poor relationship skills and antisocial use of time, and a number of warnings of inappropriate behaviour in custody. He has not been found to have any protective factors that might otherwise help to reduce the risk of further offending.
Previous assessments by DCS in 2018 had also assessed Mr Lawrie as having insufficient literacy skills to participate in criminogenic programs. It was recommended that his literacy skills be further assessed to determine his suitability for program inclusion should he be incarcerated in the future.
An assessment report from DCS dated 1 July 2019 recommended that Mr Lawrie be referred to the Domestic Family Violence Intervention Program (DFVIP) and the Work Ready Release Ready program (WRRR) or engage with a job network provider should he not engage in the WRRR. Further, given Mr Lawrie’s poor literacy skills for criminogenic programs, it was recommended that he be referred to a community-based domestic violence counselling service to address this area of need. It was further detailed in this report that should Mr Lawrie not be deemed suitable for a departmental violence program, a referral to the Making Changes program be actioned.
On 1 October 2019 the Sentence Management Unit of the DCS undertook a violent risk assessment summary with respect to Mr Lawrie and estimated him to be at high risk of violent re-offending should he not receive treatment. However, due to insufficient time remaining on his sentence, Mr Lawrie was assessed as ineligible for participation in the Violence Prevention Program (VPP). It was recommended that he be referred for an assessment to determine his eligibility for the DFVIP in custody or at least for similar community-based programs. Other recommendations included community-based alcohol and other drug counselling and that Mr Lawrie be referred to the WRRR program or engage with a job network provider. Mr Lawrie also reported that he wished to be referred to Lakininjeri Tumbetin Waal (LTW) through the Aboriginal Sobriety Group, which was considered appropriate given his extensive history of substance abuse.
Thus, Mr Lawrie was, paradoxically, considered not suitable for the Making Changes Program because he had been deemed suitable for the VPP. In other words, his risk of violence was considered to be high but in order to participate in the Making Changes Program one would need to have, at the highest, a medium or lower risk rating.
A report from the Parole Board dated 5 March 2020 indicated that the Board supported this Court making an extended supervision order with respect to Mr Lawrie. Among other things, it was recommended that Mr Lawrie be subject to conditions that he abstain from drinking alcohol, that he follows the direction of his Community Corrections Officer in relation to the people with whom he associates with and that he be subject to a 9 pm to 6 am curfew. A number of conditions directing that Mr Lawrie participate in counselling, treatment programs and the like in relation to substance abuse and domestic violence were also recommended.
The medical evidence

As mentioned earlier in these reasons, Dr Raeside provided this Court with reports and gave evidence on the hearing of the application. He interviewed Mr Lawrie on 8 July 2020 in relation to the Attorney’s application, giving particular attention to his likelihood of committing a serious offence of violence.
At the outset of his report dated 8 July 2020, Dr Raeside stated that he had previously assessed Mr Lawrie’s mother for the provision of a psychiatric report to the District Court in relation to the charge of manslaughter. In that report he said:
Ms Wanganeen’s son was electrocuted two years ago when he climbed to the top of a power pole and touched wires. Consequently his father returned to Adelaide and broke her nose, before leaving. He came back to visit his son again. On this occasion Ms Wanganeen reported that he sexually assaulted her in front of him. … Previously he had always wanted his parents to get back together, but since that incident he expressed considerable hatred towards his father.
Mr Lawrie said that had been assaulted several times in his childhood. He said that these past traumas “used to play on my mind, but whatever, it was time to move on” and he did not believe these matters adversely affected him anymore. Nevertheless, Dr Raeside said that it was apparent that Mr Lawrie was subjected to quite significant early life trauma which had had an adverse impact on his developing personality.
Mr Lawrie denied any significant past psychiatric symptoms such as mood disturbance, anxiety or psychotic symptoms. However, the doctor noted that Mr Lawrie had previously been assessed as being in the borderline intellectual range and his presentation was consistent with this. He said that he had never received any psychiatric or psychological treatment or psychiatric medication.
Dr Raeside said that Mr Lawrie appeared to have developed some insight into the overall adverse impact of illicit drugs, including developing an understanding as to why it had been problematic.
Dr Raeside then turned to previous domestic violence offences where it had been alleged that Mr Lawrie had damaged his partner’s mobile phone, threatened to kill her and burn her house down. Mr Lawrie explained that they had a major argument, a verbal one, whilst on the phone. He said, “[I] said some things I shouldn’t have said, threatened her, she rang the cops, so it was not a physical assault, but a verbal assault”. Mr Lawrie added that this was the first time that he had ever been charged with any “domestics”. Whilst the charges were not proceeded with, an intervention order was put in place. He told the doctor that it was his understanding that he could contact his ex-partner but not threaten or abuse her. Mr Lawrie said that he was not aware of any other allegations of domestic violence.
Mr Lawrie told Dr Raeside that the longest he had been in the community prior to his current incarceration was approximately six months at a time since the age of 12. When asked why he would return to custody so quickly, he said that he would “do okay for a little while and I think to myself if I go back to jail I get fed three times a day, my washing gets done, and I get respected in jail. It’s getting easier to live in jail and harder on the outside”. Mr Lawrie did not believe that he reoffended to support his drug habit but would get upset and presumably be influenced by his antisocial peers. In particular, he said that he would get upset when he felt people were rejecting him or being dismissive of him, as well as when his friends, his “brothers”, particularly Aboriginals, were being disrespected. He said that he had a lot of “brothers” in gaol that “have my back and there are more people in jail who would do things for me than any of my family have done in my life”. In this regard Dr Raeside said:
I did not understand Mr Lawrie to be saying that he deliberately offended in order to be back in jail, but seemed to suggest that jail time was no deterrent for him and he was finding it increasingly difficult to function in the community, with clear signs of significant institutionalisation that is not surprising given his early onset of incarceration.
Mr Lawrie told the doctor that he also has a history of getting into trouble whilst incarcerated, stating that at times he would abuse officers “but as soon as you stick up for yourself they write you up. I do get cheeky with them”. He also admitted to some assaults against other prisoners but added, “[i]f someone swings at me I will fight back. They [the officers] have a duty of care to me and I am not going to wait while they go through three sets of doors before I defend myself”.
Dr Raeside noted that whilst previous assessments have indicated that a large amount of Mr Lawrie’s offending appeared to be drug related, as he generally offends whilst under the influence of drugs or in order to support his drug habit, the influence of negative peers also appears to have been significant at times.
Mr Lawrie said that he had participated in the “Our Way My Choice” program whilst in custody, and was also interested in engaging with LTW, a live‑in, non-medical drug and alcohol rehabilitation centre.
When asked what had changed for him to be more motivated to pursue more of these programs, Mr Lawrie said that he was “starting to get too old for this” and had now “reached an age where I’m still young but I figure no one will help me unless I try for myself”. However, he said that these agencies had “promised all these things and they said I should get in contact before I’m released, but it seems like they’re not being helpful”. He referred to a recent interview with the Parole Board in which he was asked about the chance of him resuming drug use in the community. He said he admitted that this was a possibility with the temptation around, and that he would need help in order to avoid this. Notwithstanding this expressed wish to turn his life around, Dr Raeside opined that Mr Lawrie was unlikely to respond to standard rehabilitation programs and his chances of reoffending upon release were high.
In concluding his report Dr Raeside said:
Diagnosis
There is no evidence of any psychiatric illness. Mr Lawrie clearly has a diagnosis of an underlying Antisocial Personality Disorder and Substance Use Disorder.
Application for ESO
I would support the application for an Extended Supervision Order on the basis that Mr Lawrie remains at high risk of further violent offending in particular, and other offending more generally. This would be particularly the case should he resume illicit drug use, which is likely when faced with expected stressful situations in the community. He has poor stress management and coping skills. His risk would increase further if he reforms association with negative peers, who might seek him out.
Treatment and Prognosis
Unfortunately Mr Lawrie has a poor prognosis given his rather disastrous past history. He might be at the early stages of some mellowing in antisocial attitudes with increased motivation to make positive changes in his life. However, he will need considerable support to maintain this in the community.
He does not require psychiatric treatment, but general psychological support to help address a number of these issues might be helpful. Participation in the Domestic and Family Violence Intervention Program (DFVIP) would be useful.
(Emphasis in original.)
Dr Raeside provided this Court with a subsequent report dated 27 August 2020 which addressed the particular proposed conditions of a supervision order, whether standing alone or in conjunction with other proposed conditions, and whether these were likely to reduce the risk of Mr Lawrie reoffending. In particular, the doctor addressed the following conditions:
(i)the Respondent will not consume alcohol;
Mr Lawrie did not report a history of alcohol abuse and associated problems. I did not see any material that would contradict him. However, should Mr Lawrie consume alcohol then he would be at risk of disinhibited behaviour, particularly if intoxicated and/or stressed. As such it would increase his risk of violence.
I believe abstinence from alcohol would help reduce, to some degree, the risk of violence and would be an appropriate condition.
(j)the Respondent will not enter or remain upon the premises of any licensed hotel, clubroom or licensed entertainment venue without the prior approval of his Community Corrections Officer
As indicated, alcohol use does not appear to be a (significant) problem previously, but could be if he drinks. I would accept that attending a licensed premises might assist with Mr Lawrie’s socialisation in the community with friends and family. If a condition of “no alcohol” is in place then this condition could be removed.
(f)the Respondent will be subject to a curfew and is to remain in his residence between 9pm and 6am unless otherwise determined by the Parole Board for a period of 3 months from the date of this order save and except in the case of a medical emergency or with the prior written permission of the community corrections officer;
An important part of assisting Mr Lawrie to re-engage in prosocial activities in the community would be to avoid negative/antisocial peers. In my opinion the likelihood of antisocial associations and activities, including violence, are likely to increase in the later hours of the night and early hours of the morning. I believe a curfew is appropriate, but 9 pm might interfere with prosocial activities with family and others. 10.30 pm would be acceptable to accomplish positive purposes and avoid negative activities that might increase the risk of violence.
(g)in relation to the curfew condition, being condition (f) above, except whilst subject to a condition for electronic monitoring, the Respondent will present himself to a Police Officer, a community corrections officer or such person as is authorised to conduct a curfew check at his front door on request unless absent for medical emergency or with prior written permission for the duration of the curfew condition;
In conjunction with the condition of curfew I believe this would be appropriate and assist with the benefits of curfew.
(h)the respondent will be fitted for an electronic monitoring device and wear this device unless otherwise determined by the Parole Board for a period of 3 months. The Respondent will obey all reasonable directions of his community corrections officer with respect to the wearing and maintenance of the electronic monitoring device.
The risk of Mr Lawrie reoffending generally, and specifically violently, will be at his highest in the initial stages following his release in the community. This is due to the stress of reintegrating in the community, particularly with his degree of institutionalisation and depleted social skills. He therefore requires the most assistance early on. Therefore, in my opinion, short term (three months) electronic monitoring would assist to avoid people and places that could increase his risk.
After three months it will become more apparent whether Mr Lawrie [is] engaging appropriately in the community and compliant with other conditions. If so, then the electronic monitoring could be removed at that stage.
I also support the other conditions of the ISO.
In concluding his second report, Dr Raeside stated that whilst Mr Lawrie might be at the early stages of some mellowing in antisocial attitudes, with increased motivation to make positive changes in his life, he will need considerable support to maintain this in the community.
In the course of his oral evidence, Dr Raeside confirmed that he considered Mr Lawrie to be at high risk of further violent offending, based primarily on the documented history of prior offending, as well as the assessments undertaken whilst Mr Lawrie was in custody. The principal factors appeared to be substance abuse and antisocial peers, and this was confirmed during the clinical interview of Mr Lawrie.
Dr Raeside expressed the view that the risk of reoffending would be reduced were Mr Lawrie to abstain from illicit drugs and alcohol and avoid antisocial peers.
Whilst Dr Raeside did not diagnose any mental illness, particularly not a treatable mental illness, there was a personality disorder and psychological therapy might prove useful. Dr Raeside thought that Mr Lawrie should explore adaptive ways of dealing with various stressors rather than resorting to substance abuse or antisocial behaviour. A drugs rehabilitation program would assist in looking at better ways of dealing with life stressors, in addition to the domestic and family violence intervention program which had already been recommended. Dr Raeside thought that pro-social activities, such as employment, education and hobbies, would avoid the boredom and pattern of behaviour that had hitherto been present during most of Mr Lawrie’s life.
Dr Raeside explained why he thought that an order with conditions would assist to minimise the risk of reoffending. He expressed the view that Mr Lawrie required the most supervision in the initial stages following release into the community “as he attempts to settle … after spending considerable time in custody”.
Dr Raeside expressed the opinion that a period of two years for an extended supervision order would be appropriate because that would “be a suitable time to allow Mr Lawrie to demonstrate that he is engaged in pro-social activities in the community without relapsing into his antisocial behaviour and substance abuse”. In addition, this period would allow “the Court an opportunity to see whether he needs a further period after that”. Dr Raeside expressed concern that a longer period may prove “counterproductive”.
One of the particular issues which emerged during the course of Dr Raeside’s oral evidence was the time periods for electronic monitoring and a curfew. He agreed that, by making these conditions time‑limited or “staged”, that would operate as a “form of incentive” or “a test” so as to “see how well he manages … before complete freedom”. Dr Raeside was concerned to explain that there should be a “gradual exercise” before conditions such as electronic monitoring and a curfew are relaxed.
What also became clear during the course of Mr Lawrie’s cross-examination of Dr Raeside was that he was particularly concerned about conditions prohibiting attendance at any licensed hotel or licensed entertainment venue without the prior permission of his Community Corrections Officer, and the difficulties he had encountered when engaging with the various counsellors and courses recommended for him.
Mr Lawrie explained that he was not unwilling to undergo counselling and courses, but he had simply encountered difficulty in doing so. In addition, there was no evidence of Mr Lawrie drinking alcohol when he attended licensed premises. As he explained it, he had been doing so in order to socialise with those who had provided him with assistance in the community:
I am slowly doing what I can do [for the purposes of] reintegrating into … society and things like that.
Ultimately, whilst Dr Raeside acknowledged that attendance at licensed premises posed some increase in risk, if there were no evidence that Mr Lawrie was drinking alcohol, “then the benefits may outweigh the risks in that setting”.
A further issue that became clear during the course of the cross‑examination of Dr Raeside was that Mr Lawrie was interacting with a person who was known to be a member of an outlaw motorcycle club. Whilst the imposition of a term precluding contact or association with members of outlaw motor cycle clubs is typical and perfectly understandable, after Dr Raeside left the witness box Mr Lawrie explained that this person was his principal source of support and transport when reintegrating into the community. On the information available to Dr Raeside and the Court, Mr Lawrie’s interactions with this particular person had only been constructive.
Consideration
In Attorney-General (SA) v Humes I recently considered s 7 of the High Risk Offenders Act and said:[2]
The two jurisdictional facts that the Attorney-General must prove to enliven this Court’s discretion to make an extended supervision order are set out in s 7(4) of the High Risk Offenders Act. They provide that the Court must first be satisfied that the respondent is a “high risk offender”[3] and secondly that he or she “poses an appreciable risk to the safety of the community if not supervised under the order”.[4]
Section 7(5) makes clear that the paramount consideration of the Court in determining whether to make an extended supervision order is the safety of the community.
Section 7(6) provides a non-exhaustive list of additional factors that the Court may take into account in determining whether to make an extended supervision order including the extent to which the respondent has complied with his or her parole conditions,[5] any treatment or rehabilitation programs he or she has undertaken,[6] and any relevant evidence or representations that the respondent puts before this Court.[7]
[2]    Attorney-General (SA) v Humes [2020] SASC 123.
[3]    Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA), s 7(4)(a).
[4]    Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA), s 7(4)(b).
[5]    Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA), s 7(6)(g).
[6]    Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA), s 7(6)(f).
[7]    Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA), s 7(6)(e).
Under s 5(c) a “high risk offender” is defined to include a “serious violent offender” who was sentenced to a period of imprisonment with respect to a “serious offence of violence”. The various interlocking definitions contained in the High Risk Offenders Act and the CLCA, which govern the question whether a respondent who has been sentenced to a period of imprisonment for a “serious offence of violence” (and is thus a “serious violent offender”),[8] have been discussed in many decisions of this Court.[9] These definitions need not be set out or discussed in detail. Before me, there was no dispute that Mr Lawrie satisfies the definition of “high risk offender” under s 5(c). That is to say, there was no dispute that the aggravated drive dangerously to escape police pursuit is a “serious offence of violence” which qualifies Mr Lawrie as a “serious violent offender”.[10]
[8] See s 4 of the Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA) and ss 21(1) and 83D(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA).
[9] Attorney-General (SA) v Wikaire (2017) 127 SASR 565; Attorney-General (SA) v Wells [2017] SASC 149; Attorney-General (SA) v Jeffery (2018) 130 SASR 300; Attorney-General (SA) v Davidson [2018] SASC 91; Attorney-General (SA) v Laughlin [2019] SASC 105; Attorney-General (SA) v Kember [2019] SASC 19 and Attorney-General (SA) v Gates (2017) 129 SASR 298.
[10] In R v Pedler (No 2) [2019] SASCFC 117, [34] Kourakis CJ, with whom Nicholson J and David AJ agreed, held that an application can be made under the Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA) within 12 months of the relevant expiry date of a single sentence of imprisonment or a series of consecutive sentences of imprisonment any part of which is imposed in respect of a serious sexual offence.
Turning to the second jurisdictional fact, Mr Lawrie, in my view, poses an appreciable risk to the safety of the community if he is not subject to an extended supervision order. As mentioned earlier in these reasons, Mr Lawrie has previously been assessed as being at high risk of generalised recidivism and at high risk of violent reoffending should he not receive treatment. And, as Dr Raeside has emphasised, Mr Lawrie’s risk of reoffending, and in particular his risk of violent reoffending, will be heightened should he resume illicit drug use and if he re-establishes association with negative peers.
In the exercise of my discretion under s 7(4) of the Act I impose an extended supervision order with respect to Mr Lawrie.

Subject to what follows, I think it is appropriate to impose the conditions proposed by the Attorney. I accept that the period of two years is an appropriate period. It will enable Mr Lawrie to make a start and, hopefully progress his rehabilitation with the assistance of DCS, and various of the programmes which are available to Mr Lawrie.
As I have explained, Mr Lawrie was able to articulate his views regarding the terms and effect of the proposed extended supervision order. As it transpired, Mr Lawrie did not oppose most of the conditions which had been proposed. Nonetheless, I have considered whether it is appropriate to make an order that there be an extended supervision order, as well as what the conditions of that order should be, apart from the mandatory conditions prescribed by s 10 of the Act.
Ultimately, Mr Lawrie did not oppose the imposition of electronic monitoring or a curfew for a period of six months, recognising, I think, that these would only assist his reintegration into the community. By contrast, were there to be difficulties with compliance Mr Lawrie seemed to me to understand that conditions such as these may be imposed for a longer period and he may well go back to prison.
Whilst Mr Lawrie initially opposed any form of drug or alcohol treatment and counselling, it ultimately became clear that he was only opposing programs referable to alcohol abuse because, for a very considerable period, he had encountered no difficulties with alcohol.
Ultimately, the only particular difficulty associated with the proposed orders was whether to permit Mr Lawrie to interact with a particular person who is known to be a member of an outlaw motorcycle club. As Mr Lawrie explained it, this person was providing support and transport to various programs and meetings, assisting with other activities and accommodation, and providing a positive link with the community as Mr Lawrie attempted to reintegrate in a productive way.
Though one would not necessarily expect Mr Lawrie to reveal whether there had been any encouragement to engage in unlawful activity, it is, I think, significant that there has been no suggestion from the Attorney-General or the Parole Board that this person has, in fact, been doing that. The available information suggested only a positive interaction, without which Mr Lawrie would be in real difficulty undertaking any reintegration into the community.
In the circumstances, and not without some misgivings, I was prepared to exclude this person from the condition which otherwise prevented any contact or association with any member of an outlaw motorcycle club. In my view, that was appropriate where, on the information available to the Court, Mr Lawrie had no alternative means of support in the community.
Conclusion and orders
In the circumstances, I determined to impose an extended supervision order for a period of two years commencing on 14 October 2020 with what might be described as typical conditions, save that Mr Lawrie will be subject to a curfew for the first six months and, unless otherwise determined by the Parole Board, he will be subjected to electronic monitoring for a period of six months.