Attorney-General (SA) v Rankine - [2020] SASC 163

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal: Application)
ATTORNEY-GENERAL (SA) v RANKINE
[2020] SASC 163
Judgment of The Honourable Justice Lovell
8 September 2020
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 - OTHER MATTERS
Application by the Attorney-General (SA) for an extended supervision order in respect of the respondent, pursuant to s 7 of the Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA).
Whether the Court's power to make an extended supervision order is enlivened - whether the respondent poses an appreciable risk if not supervised under an extended supervision order - effect of counselling services on risk posed by respondent
Held, per Lovell J:
1. The respondent is a high risk offender.
2. The respondent poses an appreciable risk to the safety of the community if not supervised under an extended supervision order.
Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA) s 3, s 5, s 7; Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 21, s 24, s 83D, referred to.
Attorney-General (SA) v Grosser [2016] SASC 49, considered.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL (SA) v RANKINE
[2020] SASC 163
LOVELL J.
Overview

The respondent has a long history of violent offending. On 26 April 2013, the respondent was sentenced in the District Court of South Australia to a sentence of imprisonment of eight years and six months, for one count of aggravated causing harm with intent to cause harm.
On 18 November 2019, prior to the respondent’s release from custody, the Attorney-General applied for the respondent to be made subject to an extended supervision order (‘ESO’) for a period of five years, pursuant to s 7(4) of the Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA) (‘HRO Act’). On 13 December 2019, I made an interim supervision order (‘ISO’) in respect of the respondent, which is to remain in place until the application for the ESO is determined.
The respondent was opposed to that order and is opposed to the imposition of an ESO. He appeared without counsel.
Background
It is necessary to set out the background to this application and, in particular, the respondent’s criminal history. The respondent has been convicted of 78 offences, of which 24 relate to the use of violence and weapons. The respondent’s offending commenced in 1982 and includes, two counts of assault occasioning actual harm, common assault, assault police, recklessly causing serious injury and armed robbery.
In 1998, whilst on parole, the respondent committed the offence of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The respondent stabbed the victim three times. This offending occurred against the backdrop of significant drug and alcohol abuse. The respondent was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of six years, six months and 21 days, with a non-parole period of two years and three months.
In March 2007, whilst on parole in relation to this offending, the respondent committed two counts of causing…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Attorney-General (SA) v Rankine and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2020] SASC 163
Decision Date: 8 September 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Attorney-General (SA) v Rankine involved the respondent, Mr Rankine, opposing an extension of a Serious Offender Supervision Order (ESO) and the imposition of a new ESO. Mr Rankine appeared without counsel and had a significant criminal history marked by violence and weapons offences, dating back to 1982. His history included multiple assaults, armed robbery, and stabbing incidents. The Court had to consider whether Mr Rankine met the criteria for a high-risk offender and whether he posed an appreciable risk to the safety of the community if not supervised under an ESO. The decision hinged on the discretionary power of the Court to make an ESO based on jurisdictional facts and the paramount consideration of community safety.

The primary legal issues revolved around the interpretation and application of the Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA), specifically sections 7(4)(a)-(b) and 7(5). The Court had to determine if Mr Rankine was a high-risk offender and if he posed an appreciable risk to the community. The Court also had to consider the protective rather than punitive purpose of an ESO. Additionally, the Court assessed various reports and affidavits submitted by both parties, including psychological evaluations, criminal history, and risk assessments, to make an informed decision.

The Court found Mr Rankine to be a high-risk offender with an extensive history of violent and weapon-related crimes, justifying the imposition of an ESO. The safety of the community was deemed paramount, aligning with the object of the Act to protect the community from harm posed by serious offenders. The Court was satisfied that Mr Rankine posed an appreciable risk to the safety of the community if not supervised under an ESO. The Court's decision was influenced by the significant risk factors, including Mr Rankine’s history of violence, drug and alcohol abuse, and repeated offending while on parole. The Court concluded that an ESO was necessary to mitigate the risk Mr Rankine posed to the community.

The final orders of the Court were to impose a Serious Offender Supervision Order on Mr Rankine, effective from the expiry of his current imprisonment. The order was to remain in effect for five years, with provisions for periodic reviews and potential extensions based on Mr Rankine's risk profile and compliance with the order. The Court also directed that Mr Rankine comply with all conditions of the ESO, including regular reporting to the supervising officer and participation in any specified rehabilitation programs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

The respondent was opposed to that order and is opposed to the imposition of an ESO. He appeared without counsel.Background It is necessary to set out the background to this application and, in particular, the respondent’s criminal history. The respondent has been convicted of 78 offences, of which 24 relate to the use of violence and weapons. The respondent’s offending commenced in 1982 and includes, two counts of assault occasioning actual harm, common assault, assault police, recklessly causing serious injury and armed robbery. In 1998, whilst on parole, the respondent committed the offence of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The respondent stabbed the victim three times. This offending occurred against the backdrop of significant drug and alcohol abuse. The respondent was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of six years, six months and 21 days, with a non-parole period of two years and three months. In March 2007, whilst on parole in relation to this offending, the respondent committed two counts of causing harm intending to cause harm against the same victim and one count of aggravated assault. The respondent attacked the victim with a knife and a hammer. For this offending, he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two years, 15 months and 17 days. In 2011, three months following the expiry of his sentence in relation to the two counts of causing harm, the respondent committed the offence of aggravated causing harm with intent to cause harm. This is the offending for which the respondent was last in custody and is the index offending for the purpose of this application.Power to make an ESO The discretionary power to make an ESO is enlivened upon the Court’s satisfaction of two jurisdictional facts:[1] first, that the respondent is a high risk offender and secondly, that the respondent poses an appreciable risk to the safety of the community if not supervised under the order. In determining whether to make an ESO, the safety of the community is the paramount consideration.[2] This is consistent with the object of the Act, which is “to provide the means to protect the community from being exposed to an appreciable risk of harm posed by serious sexual offenders and serious violent offenders”.[3] An ESO thus serves a protective, rather than a punitive, purpose.[1] Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA) ss 7(4)(a)-(b).[2] Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA) s 7(5).[3] Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA) s 3.Material before the Court I have received and considered the following material:·Affidavit of Mr O’Flaherty dated 18/11/19;·Report of Ms Porcelli dated 06/12/19;·Report from OARS dated 14/11/19;·Affidavit and Annexures of Mr Rankine (containing reports of actioned counselling and OARS Community Transitions) dated 28/05/20;·Letter from Mikka Aniulis dated 24/06/20;·Letter from Dimity Bondarenko dated 29/11/19;·Report of Dr Jennings dated 25/05/18;·Affidavit of Mr Rankine received on 22/06/20 (with numerous annexures);·Report of Dr Raeside dated 20/02/20; and·Report from OARS Community Transitions by Adnan Beslagic (rehabilitation counsellor) dated 06/03/20.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

LOVELL J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: LOVELL J

Full text does not contain this section.