Attorney General (SA) v Webb

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):

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.

The parties involved in the case were the Attorney General for South Australia and the respondent, Webb. The dispute arose from Webb's conviction and subsequent sentencing for criminal offences. The High Court of Australia was tasked with reviewing the legality and proportionality of the post-custodial orders imposed on Webb following his release from prison. These orders included restrictions on his movements, communication, and association with certain individuals. The central legal issues before the court were whether the post-custodial orders were lawful and whether they constituted an unreasonable interference with Webb's rights upon his release from prison.

The court examined the statutory framework governing post-custodial orders and the extent to which these orders could be imposed on individuals who had already served their prison sentences. It was essential to determine if these orders were proportionate to the crime committed and whether they served a legitimate purpose, such as protecting the community or preventing reoffending. The court also considered whether the orders were consistent with international human rights standards and whether they imposed an unreasonable burden on Webb's personal freedom. The High Court held that the post-custodial orders in question were lawful as they were within the statutory framework and were proportionate to the crime committed. The restrictions imposed were deemed necessary to protect the community and prevent reoffending. The court found that the orders did not constitute an unreasonable interference with Webb's rights, as they were tailored to the specific circumstances of his case and were consistent with international human rights standards.

The court's decision upheld the legality and proportionality of the post-custodial orders imposed on Webb. It concluded that the restrictions placed on Webb's movements, communication, and association were reasonable and necessary to achieve the legitimate aims of public protection and preventing reoffending. The High Court's ruling provided clarity on the scope and application of post-custodial orders in South Australia, ensuring that such orders are imposed fairly and proportionately. The final orders of the court confirmed the validity of the post-custodial orders imposed on Webb, allowing them to remain in effect as part of his sentence.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established