Attorney General (SA) v Webb

[2018] SASC 189

Supreme Court of South Australia

(Criminal: Application)

ATTORNEY GENERAL (SA)  v WEBB

[2018] SASC 189

Reasons for Decision of The Honourable Justice Kelly (ex tempore)

12 December 2018

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

Application by the Attorney-General (SA) for an extended supervision order (ESO) pursuant to s 7 of the Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA).

Held (per Kelly J):

In the circumstances it is appropriate the respondent be subject to an ESO for a period of three years.

Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA) Sections 7 and 9; Sentencing Act 2017 s. 57, referred to.

ATTORNEY GENERAL (SA)  v WEBB
[2018] SASC 189

Reasons for Decision

KELLY J (ex tempore):

1. In this matter I have been asked to make an Extended Supervision Order (“ESO”) pursuant to s.7(4) of the Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (“HRO Act”) in relation to the respondent, Frederick Charles Webb. The only issue in dispute between the parties is the length of time that the respondent should be subject to the ESO.

2. On 7 November 2018, the Chief Justice made an Interim Supervision Order pursuant to s.9 of the HRO Act. On that occasion his Honour had the benefit of a report of Dr Haeney, a forensic psychiatrist, dated 19 October 2018. I have read the report of Dr Haeney which consists of 25 pages and it is of considerable assistance to this Court in deciding the issue that I have to determine today.

3. I note that as a consequence of Dr Haeney’s report, the Attorney-General quite properly and fairly withdrew the application for indefinite detention, pursuant to s.57 of the Sentencing Act 2017. I regard that of some significance in the determination of the issue I have to resolve today. Although Dr Haeney’s report quite clearly asserts that this man has a continued appreciable risk of re-offending, he did have some cautiously optimistic comments to make within the context of the issue which he was asked to decide, which was whether the respondent could control his sexual instincts.  Dr Haeney noted that the presentation of the respondent within the prison environment is a poor indicator of his behaviour or ability to control his instincts when in the community. 

4. Nevertheless, Dr Haeney, acknowledging all of the realities in relation to the respondent, including the fact that he has a serious and long history of this type of offending and a clear, longstanding sexually deviant pattern in terms of attraction to prepubescent girls, nevertheless thought that in response to treatment he had, there was some basis for what he termed ‘cautious optimism’.  He said:

   Clearly it is difficult to say with any confidence how Mr Webb would react in the community in the future, however on balance I believe that the positive changes seen over the duration of his current sentence, particularly in the 300-plus hours of SBC-me [Sexual Behaviour Clinic] treatment, coupled with the lack of problematic behaviours within prison (such as accessing or hoarding pictures of children) indicate a cautiously positive outlook for the future.  He demonstrates an improved understanding of the impact on victims, and indeed on himself. 

5. Taking into account and balancing as I must the considerations I am required to under the HRO Act, I acknowledge that this man remains an appreciable risk to the safety of the community. However he has made some improvements. Those improvements were sufficient for a psychiatrist to have refused to declare him pursuant to s.57 Sentencing Act 2017 and this consequently caused the Attorney-General to properly withdraw that application.

6. Having regard to the length of his sentence, his background and the current prognosis, I consider that a reasonable period for the respondent to be effectively managed in the community closely by Corrections would be a period of three years.  I therefore make that order.