Attorney-General (SA) v Pitt - [2025] SASC 48

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal: Application)

ATTORNEY-GENERAL (SA) v PITT
[2025] SASC 48
Reasons for Decision of the Honourable Justice McDonald
11 April 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 for an Extended Supervision Order (ESO) pursuant to s 7(1) of the Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA). The respondent is currently the subject of Interim Supervision Order (ISO) which was imposed on 1 July 2024, pending the determination of these proceedings.
The applicant brings this application on the basis that the respondent is a “high risk offender” as the respondent was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for serious sexual offending.
The applicant further contends that the respondent poses an appreciable risk to the safety of the community if not supervised under an ESO due to the respondent’s significant criminal history, the respondent’s history of non-compliance with court orders, custodial risk assessments concluding that the respondent is to be at a high risk of sexual reoffending (post completion of the Sexual Behaviour Clinic Program), and that the respondent requires ongoing treatment and rehabilitation to address his history of substance use. The applicant further submits that the respondent poses an appreciable risk to the safety of the community having breached his ISO conditions on two occasions.
The application for an ESO is contested on the basis that the purported risk that the respondent poses upon release into the community, can be managed by the range of protective measures that the respondent has in place, including ANCOR monitoring which aim to reduce his risk.
The respondent further contends that should an ESO be imposed, the proposed conditions will have a deleterious impact to the respondent. It was submitted that the imposition of curfew and electronic monitoring conditions will result in isolation and prevent the respondent from engaging in pro-social activities which were previously triggers for his engagement with drugs.
The applicant submits that the inclusion of curfew and electronic monitoring conditions remain appropriate due to the respondent’s non-compliance with court orders, the need for such conditions to serve as a deterrent preventing the respondent from interacting with anti-social cohorts and to provide the respondent structure and stability to discourage him committing any further offences.
Held; application granted.
1.The respondent is to be subject to an ESO for a period of one year and four months to reflect the time that the respondent has spent on the ISO.

2. The conditions of the ESO are to include conditions of curfew and electronic monitoring.
Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA) ss 3, 5, 7, 7(4), 7(5), referred to.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL (SA) v PITT
[2025] SASC 48
Criminal: Application
McDONALD J.

The Attorney-General (SA) has made an application for Jonathon Pitt to be made the subject of an Extended Supervision Order (‘ESO’). The basis of the application is that Mr Pitt is a “high risk offender” who “poses an appreciable risk to the safety of the community” if not supervised under such an order.[1]
[1] Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA) s 7.
Mr Pitt is a “high risk offender” as defined in the Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA) (‘the HRO Act’) as he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for serious sexual offences.[2]
[2] Ibid s 5.
Mr Pitt opposes the making of the order. In summary, it is his position that whilst he satisfies the legislative criteria for a “high risk offender”, he does not pose an appreciable risk to the safety of the community absent such an order. It was contended that Mr Pitt has a range of protective measures in place and has voluntarily developed and followed through plans aimed to reduce his risk, such that the imposition of an ESO is unnecessary.
The index offences
A convenient starting point for the consideration of this application is Mr Pitt’s index offences, which are the basis upon which the discretion to make an ESO is enlivened.
The offending was serious, calculated and manipulative.
There were two victims – SC and IM. The offences took place between 1 October 2015 and 6 April 2016. Mr Pitt was aged 25 at the time. SC was 16 and IM was 16, and turned 17 during the period of the offending.
Between 1 November 2015 and 6 April 2016, Mr Pitt ran a brothel in a suburban location. SC worked as a waitress at a community club opposite the brothel. Mr Pitt met her at that community club and, in due course supplied her with drugs and had sexual intercourse with her. He told her about the brothel and attempted to encourage her to work there, on the basis that she would earn a lot of money. She declined.
In January 2016, Mr Pitt befriended IM on Facebook and told her that he could help her to find some work.
Subsequently Mr Pitt met up with IM and engaged in various sexual acts with her. Mr Pitt provided IM with a camera and offered her $2,000 for pornographic images. She did not take up the offer.
In the days that followed, Mr Pitt engaged in further acts of sexual intercourse with IM and solicited her to work in his brothel. In order to make her amenable to doing so, Mr Pitt desensitised IM to the realities of the work by showing her advertisements, asking her to take telephone calls from clients as well as facilitating bookings and introducing her to other sex workers.
This had the desired effect and IM commenced working for Mr Pitt by engaging in sexual acts for payment.
As a consequence of this conduct Mr Pitt was charged with:
·One count of supplying a controlled drug to a child;
·One count of keeping or managing a brothel;
·Five counts of unlawful sexual intercourse with a person under 17;
·Three counts of asking a child under the age of 18 to provide commercial sexual services; and
·Three counts of enabling a child under the age of 18 to provide commercial sexual services.
Mr Pitt pleaded guilty to these offences and was sentenced to eight years imprisonment with a non-parole period of six years and five months.
Criminal History
Prior to the commission of the offences Mr Pitt had a significant criminal history – albeit that he had not previously committed any sexual offences.
Mr Pitt commenced offending as a juvenile in Victoria. In that jurisdiction he committed offences of violence, driving offences and offences of dishonesty. In October 2010, he was also found to have breached a good behaviour bond.
This was followed by driving offences in the Northern Territory and Queensland. By 2016, Mr Pitt was back in Victoria and was convicted of recklessly causing injury, and two counts of wilfully damaging property and other associated offences. For that offending Mr Pitt was sentenced to 60 days imprisonment.
At the end of that sentence Mr Pitt was extradited to South Australia to be dealt with for his index and other related offending.
Mr Pitt was not granted parole and served the entirety of his head sentence. That sentence expired on 7 July 2024.[3] In advance of the release date, the Attorney‑General made this application for Mr Pitt to be the subject of an ESO.
[3] Mr Pit was released shortly before that on 4 July 2024.
An application was also made for an Interim Supervision Order (‘ISO’) pending the outcome of the substantive application.
On 1 July 2024, over the opposition of Mr Pitt, Stanley J made the order for an ISO. He also ordered a report from a prescribed medical practitioner to address whether Mr Pitt remains at risk of committing another serious sexual offence if not supervised under such an order.
The report was prepared by a psychologist, Mr Luke Williams. For the purpose of preparing that report, Mr Williams interviewed Mr Pitt. At the outset of the interview Mr Pitt announced that he did not want to participate in the interview, however he said that he had been told that “if he did not attend, it would be a jail sentence”. Mr Pitt remained in firm opposition to the imposition of an ESO.
In addressing the determinative issue of whether Mr Pitt poses an appreciable risk to the community if not supervised under an ESO, Mr Williams expressed the view “that Mr Pitt remains at risk of committing another serious sexual offence and [he] would therefore support the imposition of an extended supervision order”.[4]
[4] Report of Luke Williams dated 8 December 2024 at 15.
In addition to providing the report Mr Williams was called to give evidence. There were common themes that ran through Mr Williams’ evidence and report. These were:
1.methylamphetamine use;
2.participation in the SBC program;
3.behaviour in custody;
4.insight into offending;
5.breaches of the Interim Supervision Order;
6.other protective measures available to Mr Pitt; and
7.Mr Williams’ assessment of the risk that Mr Pitt poses to the community.
I will deal with each of these topics separately.
1. Methylamphetamine use
In his report, Mr Williams identified that a key criminogenic risk factor for Mr Pitt is methylamphetamine use. Although Mr Pitt had previously consumed alcohol and used cannabis, it had not been problematic.
The issue that arose when, at the age of 24, Mr Pitt commenced using methylamphetamine. He had been addicted to and was heavily using methylamphetamine at the time that he committed the index offences. It was in that context, and coinciding with the breakdown of a long-term relationship, that Mr Pitt commenced his involvement in the sex workers industry.
Mr Pitt told Mr Williams that he began seeking social contact outside of his relationship, resulting in him meeting and befriending several sex workers. He began to drive for escorts, although he was unclear about the nature of his duties. Mr Pitt identified this as a period of escalation in his life, during which he began abusing drugs and prioritising his time with the escorts.
Mr Pitt reported to Mr Williams that after he started using methylamphetamine “[his] empathy stopped and [his] standards dropped”. He said that he stopped driving escorts and had “expanded on the business model a little bit”. He moved the escorts into hotel rooms or a person’s house. From there he moved ‘the operation’ into a house that he rented for that purpose. It would seem that somewhat disingenuously, Mr Pitt told Mr Williams that he did not know if the house was a brothel, however he acknowledged that it was a ‘business entity’.
As to the particular circumstances of the offending, Mr Pitt attributed his conduct to his use of drugs at that time. He made repeated statements to the effect that he “didn’t have values or empathy for anything at that time” and “he did not appreciate that SC was feeling pressure or that she was underage”. He claimed that he had offered her drugs because he believed that she was already taking them, and that he would not have had sexual intercourse with SC if he was not “under the influence”.
In relation to IM, Mr Pitt also claimed that his conduct had been influenced by the use of drugs.
In evidence, Mr Williams was asked how substance abuse effected Mr Pitt’s risk of committing a serious sexual offence. Mr Williams answered:[5]
Well, Mr Pitt identified that his usage of methamphetamine had served several - or had several effects in the period surrounding the offending. Particularly, he noted that it removed his morals, values and empathy for the victims and that this had been a very significant contributing factor to his offending. In a general sense, substance use can facilitate offending through a variety of mechanisms, including reducing inhibitions, particularly in states of intoxication, reducing an ability to appreciate the long-term consequences of actions and inhibiting, you know, an individual’s ability to determine more prosocial actions or solutions to their issues. So particularly with Mr Pitt, both through his own identification and through my formulation and the formulation of the other clinicians who’d been involved in his treatment, his substance use was a significant contributing factor.
[5] T4.
When asked about how the use of methylamphetamine factored into prolonged, nuanced and relatively sophisticated nature of Mr Pitt’s offending, Mr Williams explained:[6]
I would say that the prolonged nature of Mr Pitt’s usage No.1, brought him into contact with a cohort of people who were involved in this behaviour which served to normalise the offending behaviour and promoted his involvement in it. I would also suggest that his long term usage of the substance resulted in a degree of disinhibition and disconnection from moral behaviour that was facilitated by his just general state of intoxication, withdrawal and need to fund his usage.
[6] T29-30.
Having said that, Mr Williams agreed that Mr Pitt had demonstrated a degree of insight into the impact of his substance abuse. He said:[7]
Yes, he certainly expressed a degree of insight, particularly that he had been able to identify that his use of substances had been a destructive force in his life and he did express a desire to remain abstinent in the future.
[7] T4.
When asked how this impacted on his assessment of the risk of Mr Pitt reoffending, Mr Williams responded:[8]
Well, in the sense that this had been identified as a need and as engaging in intervention to address his use of illicit substances, although it was positive that Mr Pitt had been able to maintain abstinence in the period following his offending and whilst he was incarcerated and after his release into the community. It’s certainly my experience that that is not necessarily a long-term indicator of ability to remain abstinent and that ability would increase should a person engage in appropriate intervention.
[8] T5.
Drug use whilst on the ISO
During his time in custody and whilst on the ISO, Mr Pitt has tested negative for drugs and alcohol, with one exception. The exception was that on 7 February 2025 Mr Pitt tested positive for buprenorphine. When advised of this result, Mr Pitt admitted using the drug and said that he taken it to treat chronic back pain that he experiences.
When asked about how this drug consumption impacted on his opinion about the risk posed by Mr Pitt, Mr Williams said “it was not a positive indicator”.[9] However, he went on to qualify that by saying that the fact that the drug was not methylamphetamine, and instead was buprenorphine which has other legitimate uses, was a positive, but that needed to be considered in the context that there are a number of other options for the treatment of back pain that would not involve a breach of the ISO.[10]
[9] T5.
[10] T6.
Mr Williams concluded his evidence on the topic of drug use by reiterating that methylamphetamine use remains one of Mr Pitt’s greatest risk factors and “should he relapse into methamphetamine use and potentially using other substances as a pathway to that then [he] would be concerned that his risk would increase”.[11]
[11] T7.
2. Participation in the SBC Program
Mr Pitt undertook the Sexual Behaviour Clinic (‘SBC’), whilst in Mount Gambier Prison, between 26 April 2023 and 14 March 2024. Whilst he completed the course, the post treatment report prepared by the facilitators of the program was less than favourable.
In terms of his participation and engagement in the program, the facilitators said the following:[12]
Mr Pitt was difficult to engage in the therapeutic process and he appeared to lack motivation to meaningfully participate in the SBC. During the program, he displayed ongoing problem behaviours within the group setting such as challenging facilitators around the relevance of the program content, viewing the program as not being relevant to his needs, laughing or smirking when others were speaking, and at times instigating disruptive behaviour; he consistently displayed an adverse view toward the program, the facilitators, and DCS. Mr Pitt presented as highly guarded and defended and he displayed sensitivity to perceived criticism. He was also observed to display a more antagonistic attitude toward the facilitator who was not his primary facilitator.
Mr Pitt tended to provide brief and superficial responses to questions posed and was often resistant to discussing his own behaviour and experiences. While there was an apparent increase in his participation over the course of the program by way of his contributions to group discussions, his input frequently centred around his disagreement with introduced concepts and facilitator views. At those times, he was combative and oppositional, resistant to considering alternative viewpoints, and dismissive of feedback. He would also seemingly seek information as well as alliances with others to support his own views and stance including that regarding his own problem behaviour. While on occasion, he appeared to verbally attack others, he also periodically demonstrated an ability to challenge other participants appropriately and to ask questions of them around uncomfortable topics of discussion.
[12] FDN 3, Affidavit of Konstantina Toubanakis, dated 31 May 2024, KT6 at 65.
On 19 July 2023, Mr Pitt was placed on a behavioural agreement to support his continuation in the SBC program due to his minimal participation in the group, his reluctance to complete his SBC homework, and his unhelpful attitude and behaviours directed towards the program and the facilitators. He remained on the agreement for the rest of the program.
On a positive note, the facilitators observed that as the program progressed, Mr Pitt became somewhat easier to engage in individual sessions, with him seemingly displaying an increased willingness to be more open and vulnerable within that environment. This was despite Mr Pitt continuing to exhibit a negative attitude towards the sessions and expressing the view that they were of little benefit.
Upon completion of the program, Mr Pitt’s risk of sexual reoffending was estimated to be within the well above average range and he was predicted to have a sexual recidivism rate of 48.5 per cent, over five years, in comparison to the normative sample for this offence type. The facilitators also noted that Mr Pitt evidenced limited protective factors that may assist him to reduce his level of risk over time. However, it was thought that Mr Pitt’s willingness to persist with the SBC despite his negative views of the program, indicated some desire for him to better understand himself and his behaviour.
During his interview with Mr Pitt, Mr Williams asked him about his participation in the SBC. Mr Pitt said that he did not want to be on the SBC for a number of reasons. These included that he “did not like group situations”, and he “struggled to express himself like [he] wanted to”.[13] He reported that he “did not wish to associate with the type of people that were completing the program” as “before he had gotten involved with drugs, [he] used to stay away from people like that”. He said that he “could not relate to these people” which had served as a significant barrier to his engagement, as he has been told to “build trust with them and feel sorry for them” which he was “not able to do”.
[13] Report of Luke Williams dated 8 December 2024 at 13.
Mr Pitt acknowledged that his behaviour as reported by the facilitators was not overly positive however, said that at times he has struggled to cope in a group environment and had sometimes “just frozen”, which he believed was misinterpreted by the facilitators as “not participating”.

Mr Pitt told Mr Williams that despite negative aspects of the program it had “exceeded [his] expectations and was beneficial for [him]”.
In relation to the facilitators’ assessment of his outstanding risk factors, Mr Pitt said that he did not consider that he was at risk because he “had too many safeguards in place”. In particular, he has the lifelong ANCOR reporting obligations, Mr Pitt expressed the view that this was a sufficient barrier to prevent him from reoffending.
In his evidence, Mr Williams made it plain that Mr Pitt’s poor engagement in the SBC was a significant contributor to his overall opinion about Mr Pitt’s risk of reoffending. He explained:[14]
Well, participation in treatment, meaningful participation in treatment is the primary manner in which risk of reoffending is reduced. Positive treatment - engagement in treatment can significantly reduce risk. That’s not the case when that engagement in treatment hasn’t been as positive and certainly, in terms of the overall report of Mr Pitt’s engagement with the program, you know, it was certainly at the lower end of what we would consider to be, you know, the range in which people do. I mean, it was pretty negative across the board in terms of how they described his participation in treatment.
[14] T7-8.
Mr Williams was asked about whether the explanations that Mr Pitt had provided for the observations made by the facilitators regarding his poor involvement in the program impacted on his assessment of Mr Pitt’s risk. He responded:[15]
Certainly I took Mr Pitt’s account into consideration, particularly his statement that he didn’t like group situations and struggled to express himself. You know, also I guess his statement that he didn’t wish to associate with the type of people that was completing the program, you know, was a - is a common factor that people, you know, experience when participating in this kind of treatment. You know, overall I guess I gave weight to the report - the post-treatment report which painted a different picture of Mr Pitt’s engagement, with Mr Pitt’s engagement, you know, he mentioned that he struggled to speak up in group situations. However, the post-treatment report indicated that he - sort of painted a different picture, I don’t have it in front of me right now but I believe they make reference to him sort of making - I can’t remember the exact quote but certainly sort of making statements that were not supportive of the program content and, you know, being just a generally disruptive participant, which I guess was not consistent with Mr Pitt’s, you know, account of his engagement and was more illustrative of a participant who sort of wasn’t engaged in treatment and was presenting as quite disruptive.
[15] T8.
Mr Williams went on to explain that it was of concern that Mr Pitt saw the other participants as different to him. He explained:[16]
It is indicative that Mr Pitt does not consider himself to be, you know, a sexual offender or certainly sort of identifies with a different offending cohort, which, in terms of his, you know, sort of long-term prognosis and inability to, you know, accept and fully consider the elements of one’s offending is not a positive indicator.
[16] T9.
In cross-examination and submissions, Mr Truscott challenged Mr Williams’ conclusions about Mr Pitt’s explanation for why he had behaved in the manner he did in the SBC and suggested that Mr Pitt was misunderstood. In particular, it was put to Mr Williams that shame, a dislike of group situations, concerns about confidentiality, and a guarded and suspicious personality may all be factors that create the impression that a person is failing to engage. Whilst Mr Williams accepted that it was possible that such matters may factor in, he went on to explain that in his experience, the facilitators go to considerable lengths to engage with the participants regardless of their personality style. He said:[17]
… in my experience the facilitators, you know, do spend hundreds of hours with the participants of the program and do form or at least attempt to form views that would not necessarily be solely influenced by that factor.
[17] T21.
Mr Williams elaborated:[18]
You know, in terms of my overall opinion it is guided by my clinical impression of Mr Pitt but also the clinical impression of the facilitators who spent hundreds of hours with Mr Pitt as opposed to my two hours. I would again state that the picture that was painted of Mr Pitt in the post-treatment report which included and I found the quote now, ‘laughing and smirking when others were speaking, instigating disruptive behaviour and displaying an adverse view towards the program facilitators’, was not consistent with the picture that Mr Pitt was painting.
[18] T23.
3. Behaviour in custody
Mr Pitt’s behaviour in custody has been poor. He was reported on numerous occasions for conduct including abuse towards staff, possession of contraband, attempting to obtain illicit substances (suboxone) and assaults against other prisoners and staff. It is documented that Mr Pitt received multiple warnings relating to leaving programs early, poor attitude towards staff, non-compliance with officer directions, not meeting unit standards, attempting to divert medications and smuggling food.
In his report Mr Williams noted Mr Pitt’s poor institutional behaviour. Although it is not explicit, it is implicit in the structure of the report, that this behaviour was factored into Mr Williams’ ultimate opinion.
In evidence, Mr Williams was asked to further elaborate on the impact that Mr Pitt’s behaviour in custody had in assessing Mr Pitt’s risk. He said:[19]
I mean, it was a contributing factor in that it is relevant that that was Mr Pitt’s just general engagement with supervision. You know, in my experience as a custodial manager, 13 incidents is a large amount of incidents and is certainly indicative of, like, an ongoing pattern of noncompliant behaviour in terms of being able to comply with the rules and regulations of the institution.
[19] T12.
4. Insight into offending
The facilitators of the SBC noted that early in the program Mr Pitt had acknowledged that he lacked insight into his offending and that this was an area of need. Throughout the program the facilitators observed some increased insight on the part of Mr Pitt however, this was “hampered by his negative view toward the program, resistance to discussing his own behaviour and experiences, and a lack of motivation for program engagement”.[20] Additionally, while Mr Pitt considered himself to have a good understanding of his offending, he was observed to frequently externalise blame and responsibility onto his victims, to reduce his own culpability.
[20] FDN 3, Affidavit of Konstantina Toubanakis made on 31 May 2024, KT6 at 5.
It was also noted that whilst Mr Pitt accepted that interpersonal aggression had been a problem for him in the past, he demonstrated little to no insight into his ongoing use of aggressive behaviours in his interpersonal interactions. Instead, he tended to externalise the blame to others, reducing his own sense of personal responsibility. The facilitators noted that during the program there were some documented instances of interpersonal aggression directed towards staff, and that he also displayed passive aggressive behaviours within the group setting. Concerningly, it was recorded that he appeared to endorse beliefs that support the use of violence against women, again largely externalising blame to the victims in those cases. He also continued to minimise the violence he had perpetrated against one of his index offence victims.
In evidence, whilst Mr Williams accepted that Mr Pitt has a degree of insight into his risk factors, he said that he still has a tendency to minimise his risk of further offending.[21]
[21] T9.
5. Breaches of the Interim Supervision Order
On 16 August 2024, a Parole Board warrant was issued for the arrest of Mr Pitt on the basis that it was alleged that he had breached condition 15 of the ISO, which is:
15.The Respondent must not go or stay within 50 meters of any school, kindergarten, childcare centre, playground, public toilet or other places where children are regularly present (including, without limitation, public transport hubs, shopping centres, public libraries and recreational areas). For the avoidance of doubt, this condition does not prohibit contact where it is necessary and incidental to the Respondent performing essential activities of daily living, for example, shopping at a supermarket.
It was alleged that between 2.32pm and 3.16pm on 10 August 2024, Mr Pitt attended Somerton Beach and had walked along the sand. In the Minute to the Parole Board advising of this breach, his case manager expressed concerns more generally about Mr Pitt’s attitude towards the conditions of the ISO. She said that Mr Pitt “frequently demonstrates an entitled attitude towards his conditions. He has made comment that he does not believe he should be on the ISO”.[22] Mr Pitt also said that the Department should be paying for the cost of his hotel accommodation as they owed him a duty of care. He was told by his case manager that this would not occur. On 20 July 2024, shortly after this conversation, in what appears to have been an act of defiance, Mr Pitt attended at the Holden Hill Police Station to hand himself in on the basis that he was homeless and unable to pay his motel bill.
[22] FDN 25, Affidavit of Konstantina Toubanakis, dated 26 February 2025, KT11 at 18.
The case manager expressed concern that Mr Pitt was engaging in manipulative behaviour, to further his own purposes. She said that during their meetings, Mr Pitt would attempt to deflect conversations away from topics which he did not wish to discuss and would attempt to dictate the terms of his conditions when he felt that he did not agree.
An additional concern raised by the case manager was around Mr Pitt frequenting locations for short periods of time, potentially with known associates. She observed:[23]
Mr Pitt does not believe he poses a risk to the community and appears to lack insight into his history of offending and behaviours. The writer has concerns when coupled with his movements to known associates.
[23] FDN 25, Affidavit of Konstantina Toubanakis, dated 26 February 2025, KT11.
Mr Pitt was arrested on 16 August 2024. He was interviewed by the Parole Board on 29 October 2024. The Parole Board found that Mr Pitt had been in breach of condition 15 by attending at the beach and determined to modify the conditions of his ISO to include an intensive supervision regime with electronic monitoring.
Mr Pitt was released from custody on 31 October 2024.
On 17 February 2025, Mr Pitt’s Community Corrections Officer forwarded a further minute to the Parole Board alleging breaches of condition 7(c) of his ISO, that being that “the Respondent must attend for assessment and, if assessed as suitable, go to and complete any intervention program” and condition 8(b), by returning a positive result to buprenorphine. This breach occurred on 7 February 2025.
In relation to the breach of condition 7(c), Mr Pitt had been referred to the OARS “Don’t Become That Man Program”, which is a domestic violence focussed program.
At the time of writing that minute, Mr Pitt had not participated in the intake assessment. Mr Pitt challenged why it was necessary for him to attend the course as he had not been convicted of any domestic violence offence. He said that he was happy to “cop the breach” for not attending and he was sick of contacting facilitators.
A warning letter was sent to Mr Pitt about these alleged breaches.
At the time Mr Williams wrote his report, Mr Pitt had only committed the first breach (the breach of condition 15). He told Mr Williams that he did not believe that a beach constituted a “recreational centre”. He complained that being released on home detention conditions had resulted in him feeling excluded from society and suffering from symptoms of depression and anxiety.
By the time Mr Williams gave his evidence, Mr Pitt had committed the subsequent breaches. Mr Williams was asked to comment on whether Mr Pitt’s response and attitude to a direction to undertake the OARS program impacted on his view about the risk posed by Mr Pitt. He said:[24]
Well, the case note doesn’t present an overly positive view of Mr Pitt’s views of engaging in the recommended rehabilitations. Whilst I absolutely acknowledge the difficulty in juggling employment and other, you know, very important factors with the requirements of rehabilitation, there are, you know, a number of indicators in the case note that he was sick of contacting facilitators, was questioning why he needed to do the program, was happy to cop the breach for not attending the program and was reporting that he’d been deemed unsuitable for alcohol and drug counselling, don’t present a positive view of Mr Pitt’s desire to engage in rehabilitation. Again, should he not engage in that rehabilitation, then that would not be a positive indicator in terms of his risk of reoffending.
[24] T11.
During submissions, Mr Truscott put to the Court that the failure to participate in an assessment for inclusion in the “Don’t Become That Man” program had to be considered in its proper factual context. As required, Mr Pitt had contacted the organisation for assessment in December 2024. At that time, he was advised that they were closing for Christmas and there would be an eight-week break, which took him to February 2025.
On speaking with the organisers of the course, Mr Pitt indicated a preference to not participate, however he said he would do so if it was ordered by Corrections. It was the view of the course facilitators that, on that basis, they would not accept him for the program.
It was submitted by Mr Truscott that Mr Pitt is entitled to refuse to undertake a domestic violence course in circumstances in which he has no convictions for offences of domestic violence, and the evidence led by the Attorney-General has not established why participating in such a course would reduce his risk to the community. Further, that whilst there was a record of Mr Pitt having been charged with a domestic violence offence, that charge was not proceeded with. It was submitted that in those circumstances it was not open for Corrections to rely on those allegations as a basis to direct Mr Pitt to undertake the program.
I pause there to observe that whilst there is little information before me about the contents of the program, domestic violence behaviour is underpinned by a power imbalance between perpetrators and their victims. Whilst it must be readily accepted that Mr Pitt’s index offending did not occur in a typical domestic context, it had many of the hallmarks of domestic violence offending. That is, it was facilitated by a power imbalance and involved a flagrant disregard for the rights and dignity of the young women involved. In those circumstances it would be unsurprising for Corrections to come to the view that there would be some benefit in Mr Pitt attending a program that addressed those issues.
6. Other protective measures available to Mr Pitt
Central to Mr Truscott’s submissions in opposition to the imposition of an ESO, are other protective measures that are in place. In particular Mr Truscott relied upon Mr Pitt’s ANCOR obligations.[25] These include annual reporting, reporting changes to personal details, travel restrictions, and reporting obligations in relation to contact with children.
[25] FDN 30, First Affidavit of Garen Truscott dated on 5 March 2025, GMT1.
In addition to this, prior to his most recent release from custody, Mr Pitt had reached out to a prison chaplain, Richard Hawke, who is based at the Adelaide Remand Centre, requesting assistance with accessing the “Breaking Free” post‑release mentoring [26]program. This is a church-based mentoring program for ex-offenders run by Baptist Care SA. It is a program that links local churches with men and women who have been, or are about to be, released from custody and want to move on with their lives.[27] Mr Pitt’s Community Corrections Officer has however denied Mr Pitt permission to be involved in this program.
[26] T35.
[27] FDN 30, First Affidavit of Garen Truscott, dated 5 March 2025, GMT2.
Mr Pitt has also sought a mental healthcare plan from his GP and was referred to Adam Zain, a Mental Health Practitioner at the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement in October 2024. Mr Pitt’s first contact with Mr Zain took place on 15 October 2024 and took the form of a mental health support session. After Mr Pitt’s release, he continued to see Mr Zain for a period of time however their last contact was in January 2025, due to Mr Pitt’s work commitments.[28]
[28] Ibid, GMT3.
Other protective measures put in place by Mr Pitt include being a proactive participant in the Workskil program and engagement with OARS for assessment as to his suitability for alcohol or other drug counselling (‘AOD’). Of his own initiative, Mr Pitt contacted Centacare and requested general counselling and involvement in The Centacare Drug and Alcohol Counselling (‘CDAC’) program. Since that time Mr Pitt has attended a number of CDAC counselling sessions.
In his interview with Mr Williams, when asked about whether he believed that he was at risk of further offending and subsequently whether an ESO was necessary, Mr Pitt responded that he had the other measures in place. He said that he did not believe that he was at risk of further sexual offending because of those safeguards, and in particular the ANCOR obligations, which involved the police having access to, amongst other things, his phone, passwords and social medial accounts. Mr Pitt expressed the belief that the ANCOR regulations were a sufficient barrier to prevent him from reoffending and that he “did not need the complications of an ESO”, which he perceived “felt like a suspended sentence” and that was “not helping [him] find work or accommodation”.[29]
[29] Report of Luke Williams dated 8 December 2024, at 14.
In cross-examination, Mr Williams agreed that factors such as “employment, completing dialectical behavioural therapy, psychological counselling, alcohol and other drug counselling” were all relevant to an assessment of risk. Mr Williams however observed that any steps that have been undertaken to date (particularly Mr Pitt’s abstinence from drugs) have taken place whilst Mr Pitt has been on an ISO. He said:[30]
I would [agree these are positive signs], with the caveat that there are significant external constraints on his behaviour that would mean that it was less likely that he would engage it [sic] than if he did not have these constraints on his behaviour.
[30] T31.
He further explained:[31]
So that would be - I mean, if we - I guess, you know, I can’t definitively state whether or not Mr Pitt would engage in these recommended rehabilitations in the absence of an order mandating that he do so. There are certainly indicators there that that would not be the case and, should he not engage in those recommended rehabilitations, then, you know, that would not be a positive indicator in terms of his risk.
[31] T12.
Consideration
The object of the HRO Act is to provide a means to protect the community from being exposed to an appreciable risk of harm posed by serious offenders.[32] An ESO is one means of providing that protection. The paramount consideration of the Court in determining whether to make an ESO is the safety of the community.[33]
[32] Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 s 3.
[33] Ibid, s 7(5).
An ESO is not to be used to further punish an offender, particularly in circumstances in which they have completed the entirety of their sentence without the opportunity of parole. Mr Pitt falls into this category. The only question to be determined on this application is whether, based on all of the material before the Court, Mr Pitt poses an appreciable risk to the safety of the community if not supervised under such an order.

It is also important to note, that whilst an expert report and the opinion of that expert, are relevant considerations and of assistance in determining this question, the decision remains that of the Court, taking into account all of the material.
Insight is a matter that is fundamental to rehabilitation. That is, insight into the nature and seriousness of the offences, the impact on the victim and insight into the criminogenic risk factors of the individual offender. Absent genuine insight, there will always be an increased risk of reoffending.
Mr Pitt purports to have insight, and there are some limited signs of it developing over time, however the absence of evidence to supporting genuine insight remains a strong weakness in his resistance to the application for an ESO.
Mr Pitt claims to have insight into the impact of his methylamphetamine use, however he was prepared to consume buprenorphine and attempt to justify it after the event. Having said that, Mr Pitt’s ability to otherwise abstain from drugs and alcohol is a positive sign that he may be commencing down the path to rehabilitation.
Of greater concern is the attitude that Mr Pitt has demonstrated about his offending and the need for assistance in rehabilitating both whilst in custody and since his release. Throughout this time Mr Pitt has consistently demonstrated a cavalier attitude in which “he knows best”, rather than being prepared to accept and rely on the directions and advice of those who are there to support him.
This has manifested in poor behaviour whilst in custody and more particularly during the SBC. During the SBC, Mr Pitt consistently behaved in a manner which suggested that he was derisive about the program and what it offered him. Of particular concern was Mr Pitt’s view that he was in some way in a different category to the other participants in the group, because of the nature of his offending. Such an attitude reflects a profound lack of understanding of the nature and seriousness of his offending, and the impact on his victims.
As previously mentioned, Mr Pitt has attempted to put forward alternative explanations for his behaviour including shame (potentially because of his aboriginality), a dislike of groups and a reserved personality style. Like Mr Williams, I do not accept that considerations of this type explain the observations of the SBC facilitators. The facilitators provide a clear description of Mr Pitt deliberately engaging in negative, disruptive, and problematic behaviour throughout the course.
Those observations are consistent with Mr Pitt’s conduct more generally whilst in custody, and under supervision in the community. An example of the latter is Mr Pitt’s attitude towards attending the “Don’t Become That Man Program”. Mr Pitt may well have views about whether or not he would prefer to attend the course, however, that is not to the point. On an ISO, the decision is not his, but that of those with training and experience, whose role it is to supervise him.
Whilst I accept that Mr Pitt has made some efforts to seek out his own supports, that has been whilst on an ISO with an ESO looming large. It is far from guaranteed that Mr Pitt will maintain these efforts absent some form of supervision order. I am in fact inclined to believe that he will not, given his lack of insight into the seriousness and consequences of his previous offending, and his need for treatment, counselling and supervision.
I am satisfied that the criteria under s 7(4) of the HRO Act has been satisfied. I propose to make the order that Mr Pitt be the subject of an ESO.
The conditions
That then brings me to the conditions of the ESO. Given that the purpose of the order is to protect the community, the conditions should impact on the liberty of Mr Pitt no more than is necessary to effect that purpose.
Mr Pitt considers his home to be Halls Gap in Victoria. He has no familial supports in South Australia. I am told that it his intention to return to live in Victoria, when he can, in order to be with family.[34] It was submitted that in those circumstances the ESO should be for a duration as short as possible in order to facilitate Mr Pitt’s reunification with his family.
[34] FDN 31, Further Written Submissions of Respondent at [50].
The conditions sought by the Attorney-General include electronic monitoring and a curfew.
It is Mr Pitt’s submission that not only has the Attorney-General not identified a proper basis for such conditions, but if they are imposed, they will in fact have a deleterious impact on Mr Pitt. It was submitted that the electronic monitoring conditions are intrusive and could cause Mr Pitt to socially withdraw. Mr Pitt has identified isolation as a risk factor in his drug use and has raised concerns that the regime proposed by the Attorney‑Generalis very socially isolating. He perceives that wearing the electronic monitoring device identifies him as a criminal and prevents him from engaging in pro-social activities such as working, training or innocuous activities like going to the beach.
The Attorney-General maintains that the electronic monitoring condition and the curfew condition remain appropriate, however, it is accepted that the intensive supervision condition (that was put in place by the Parole Board when Mr Pitt was released from custody for the breach of the ISO) is no longer required.
It is the Attorney-General’s position that these conditions remain necessary in order to minimise the risk that Mr Pitt poses to the community. It is the Attorney-General’s submission that Mr Pitt has been incarcerated for a lengthy period of time and has previously been non-compliant with court orders.
The Attorney-General also relied on the fact that Mr Pitt’s offending occurred in the context of his involvement with an anti-social cohort and whilst using illicit substances. Also, whilst in custody Mr Pitt attempted to obtain suboxone and since being released has obtained and consumed buprenorphine. It was submitted that the monitoring condition arguably acts as a deterrent to Mr Pitt engaging in such behaviour.
Finally, the Attorney-General also contends that Mr Pitt requires conditions of this nature to provide structure and stability to discourage him from committing any further offences.
In my view, there is force to those submissions, and I propose to include the conditions imposing a curfew and electronic monitoring.
The duration of the order will be one year and four months to reflect the extended period of the time that Mr Pitt has spent on the ISO.