Attorney-General (SA) v Moyle [No 2] - [2019] SASC 31

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal: Application)
ATTORNEY-GENERAL (SA) v MOYLE [NO 2]
[2019] SASC 31
Judgment of The Honourable Justice Hinton
8 March 2019
CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - SENTENCING ORDERS - ORDERS AND DECLARATIONS RELATING TO SERIOUS OR VIOLENT OFFENDERS OR DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDERS - SERIOUS OR VIOLENT OFFENDER
CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - POST-CUSTODIAL ORDERS - OTHER TYPES OF POST-CUSTODIAL ORDERS
On 25 July 2018 this Court made an interim supervision order with respect to Mr Jason Scott Moyle pursuant to s 9 of the Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA) (the Act). On 27 July 2018 the order was varied and Mr Moyle was released from prison that same day.
Between 27 July 2018 and 30 July 2018 Mr Moyle breached three conditions of the interim supervision order and was taken back into custody. On 5 September 2018 the Parole Board satisfied itself that Mr Moyle had breached the interim supervision order. Pursuant to s 17(1)(b)(ii) the Parole Board directed that Mr Moyle be detained in custody pending attendance before this Court for determination as to whether a continuing detention order should be made under s 18(2) of the Act.
Held, Mr Moyle breached three conditions of his interim supervision order and poses an appreciable risk to the safety of the community if not detained in custody. He is to be detained in custody under s 18(2) of the Act from the date of this judgment until 16 December 2019.
Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA) ss 4, 7, 9, 10(4), 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 21, 22; Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Bill 2015 (SA); Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA), s 23, referred to.
Attorney-General (SA) v Moyle [2018] SASC 106; Attorney-General (SA) v Sullivan (No 2) [2018] SASC 74; Attorney-General (SA) v V, ZR [2019] SASC 1; Cooper Brookes (Wollongong) Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1981) 147 CLR 297; Legal Services Board v Gillespie-Jones (2013) 249 CLR 493; Moloney v Motor Accident Commission (2013) 117 SASR 189; Moreton Bay Regional Council v Mekpine Pty Ltd (2016) 256 CLR 437; Weinstock v Beck (2013) 251 CLR 396; White v Police (SA) [2018] SASC 124, considered.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL (SA) v MOYLE [NO 2]
[2019] SASC 31
Criminal
HINTON J:
Introduction

On 25 July 2018 this Court made an interim supervision order with respect to Mr Jason Scott Moyle pursuant to s 9 of the Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA) (the Act). On 27 July 2018 that order was varied and, on that same date, Mr Moyle was released from prison.
Between 27 July 2018 and 30 July 2018 Mr Moyle breached three conditions of the interim supervision order. On 30 July 2018 the Parole Board issued a warrant for Mr Moyle’s arrest under s 15 of the Act. Later that same day the warrant was executed and Mr Moyle was taken into custody. He has remained in custody ever…

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 Moyle [No 2]

Details

AGLC: Attorney-General (SA) v Moyle [No 2] [2019] SASC 31
Case: [2019] SASC 31
Decision Date: 8 March 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Attorney-General (SA) v Moyle [No 2], the defendant, Mr Moyle, was subject to a sentencing appeal by the Attorney-General of South Australia. The case revolved around the severity of the sentence imposed on Mr Moyle for his criminal activities, which were deemed serious or violent. The Court of Appeal was tasked with reviewing the appropriateness of the original sentence and any post-custodial orders that were to follow.

The primary legal issues that the court had to address were whether the original sentence was appropriate given the nature and severity of Mr Moyle’s crimes, and whether the post-custodial orders, particularly those relating to serious or violent offenders, were justified. The court also had to consider expert opinions on Mr Moyle’s likelihood of compliance with any conditions set forth in the post-custodial orders.

In its reasoning, the Court of Appeal determined that the original sentence was not adequate considering the gravity of Mr Moyle’s offences. The court found that Dr Raeside’s assessment of Mr Moyle's antisocial personality disorder and propensity to breach conditions did not support the notion that he would comply without stringent oversight. Consequently, the court increased the custodial period and reinforced the post-custodial orders to ensure public safety. The decision was based on the necessity to impose a sentence that would adequately deter Mr Moyle from reoffending and protect the community.

The final orders of the court mandated that Mr Moyle be detained in custody until 16 December 2019. This extension was deemed necessary to reflect the seriousness of the crimes committed and the risk Mr Moyle posed to the community.

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

Lastly, I have not overlooked the incentive to comply with the terms of the interim supervision order that a period in custody of itself might provide to Mr Moyle. I have, however, given this factor little weight in view of Dr Raeside’s opinion as to the likelihood of Mr Moyle being compliant without intervention, his antisocial personality disorder and the speed of his breach of the interim supervision order.Conclusion and orders I order that Mr Moyle be detained in custody under s 18(2) of the Act until 16 December 2019.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.