Attorney-General (SA) v SORENSON

[2020] SASC 206

Supreme Court of South Australia

(Criminal: Application)

ATTORNEY-GENERAL (SA) v SORENSON

[2020] SASC 206

Ruling of The Honourable Justice Livesey (ex tempore)

20 October 2020

CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - SENTENCING ORDERS - ORDERS AND DECLARATIONS RELATING TO SERIOUS OR VIOLENT OFFENDERS OR DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDERS - GENERALLY

CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - POST-CUSTODIAL ORDERS - OTHER TYPES OF POST-CUSTODIAL ORDERS

The Attorney-General made an application for an interim supervision order pursuant to s 9 and s 10 of the Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA) with respect to the respondent. The respondent did not oppose the making of an interim supervision order but contested the electronic monitoring and curfew conditions of the proposed order.

Held, allowing the application; the respondent is to be subject to an interim supervision order including conditions regarding electronic monitoring and a curfew.

Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA) s 9, s 10, referred to.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL (SA) v SORENSON
[2020] SASC 206

Criminal:  Application

LIVESEY J:

Introduction

1. This is an application for, amongst other matters, an interim supervision order ahead of the application for an extended supervision order which has been sought on 12 October 2020.

2. In general terms, there is no dispute about the terms of the order that this Court should make.

3. In particular, there is no dispute that there should be an examination of the respondent by a prescribed health professional, that any medical report produced by that health professional be provided to the parole board and to the Department for Correctional Services, or that there should be an interim supervision order pursuant to ss 9 and 10 of the Criminal Law (High Risk) Offenders Act 2015 (SA).

   Two disputed conditions

4. The matters the subject of dispute concern two of the conditions sought in the proposed interim supervision order.  Those conditions relate to whether the respondent should be subjected to electronic monitoring as well as curfew conditions.

5. For the applicant, it is contended that these represent a very marked imposition on the respondent’s personal freedoms.  It is said that these are onerous obligations, and an example was given in the course of argument today about the necessity to charge the electronic monitoring equipment more than once each day.  It is contended that the stresses associated with these conditions may in fact be counterproductive to the respondent’s return to the community and to his desire to re-engage in employment.  Finally, it is emphasised that the respondent, despite his offending history, has generally been assessed as a person with a very good work ethic, whether that be in fencing work, painting work or other employment.

6. For the Attorney-General, it is submitted that these conditions will assist to meet the risk which is suggested by a combination of the assessments made of the respondent as someone who presents a high risk of further offending, together with the respondent’s history of offending.  Particular emphasis is given to the history of offences of violence.  These offences have generally occurred when the respondent has been affected by drugs and alcohol.  An example of that is the subject offending for which the respondent has most recently been sentenced to a term of imprisonment.

7. Finally, it is submitted on behalf of the Attorney-General that the risk suggested by these matters is supplemented by the history of the respondent’s performance on parole.  The respondent was released on 10 October 2019 and generally performed acceptably whilst on parole until May 2020.

8. During that period it appears that the respondent began a relationship and married. However, the respondent and his wife regrettably separated after only two weeks.  The respondent was, as a result, very angry and bitter and described his former wife as “a dog”.  He then started a new relationship with another woman who had three small children.  Unfortunately, that relationship appears to have been unstable and led to the respondent relapsing into illicit drug use.  Ultimately, this led to a positive drug test on 5 May 2020 whereupon the respondent ceased reporting.  The respondent was not apprehended until August 2020.

   Disposition of the application

9. Whilst I accept that the imposition of conditions associated with electronic monitoring and a curfew are indeed impositions on the respondent’s freedoms, it seems to me that there is much to be said for the contention that these will assist the respondent to curb any illicit drug-taking and to meet the risk suggested by, amongst other matters, his offending history and his performance on parole between, at least, May and August 2020. 

10. In my view, these will not unduly impede the respondent’s capacity to engage in a prosocial lifestyle, including engagement in productive work.

11. Whilst I accept that the respondent has a degree of insight into his past performance whilst on parole, I can only encourage him that should he perform positively, notwithstanding these conditions, the scope for variation in conditions over time would be enhanced.

12. In the circumstances, the Court will impose the interim supervision order, including the conditions regarding electronic monitoring and a curfew.