SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal: Application)
ATTORNEY-GENERAL (SA) v WILLIAMS
[2025] SASC 164
Reasons for Decision of the Honourable Justice B Doyle
5 September 2025
CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - POST-CUSTODIAL ORDERS - OTHER TYPES OF POST-CUSTODIAL ORDERS
CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - SENTENCING ORDERS - ORDERS AND DECLARATIONS RELATING TO SERIOUS OR VIOLENT OFFENDERS OR DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDERS - DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDER
The applicant seeks an interim supervision order in respect of the respondent, a high risk offender, pursuant to s 9(1) of the Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA) (‘HRO Act’), pending the hearing and determination of an application for an extended supervision order. The respondent’s index offending involved procuring a child for sexual activity in May 2017. An extended supervision order was first made on 2 September 2020 and a second extended supervision order was made on 6 September 2023.
Held, making an interim supervision order:
1.the matters alleged in the materials supporting the allegation would, if proved, establish that the respondent poses an appreciable risk of sexual offending if not supervised, and would justify the making of an extended supervision order;
2. the Court should not decline to exercise its discretion to impose an interim supervision order.
Observations made as to the construction of ss 7 and 9 of the HRO Act.
Child Sex Offenders Registration Act 2006 (SA) s 44; Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA) ss 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 15, 18 ; Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA); Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) ss 19AB(1)(a)(i), 63A, 63B ; Sentencing Act 2017 (SA) ss 26, 57, 58, 59, referred to.
Attorney-General (SA) v Fenner [2020] SASC 107; Attorney-General (SA) v Gillard [2022] SASC 104; Attorney-General (SA) v Grosser [2016] SASC 49; Attorney-General (SA) v Humes [2020] SASC 123; Attorney-General (SA) v Jeffery [2018] SASC 1; Attorney-General (SA) v Karpany [2020] SASC 219; Attorney-General (SA) v McCann [2023] SASC 5; Attorney-General (SA) v Tipping [2019] SASC 7; Attorney-General (SA) v Wells [2017] SASC 149; Attorney-General (SA) v Williams [2023] SASC 64; Attorney-General (SA) v Williams (No 2) [2023] SASC 119; R v Humphrys [2018] SASCFC 69; R v Schuster (2016) 125 SASR 388; State of New South Wales v Elomar (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 1034, discussed.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL (SA) v WILLIAMS
[2025] SASC 164Criminal: application
B DOYLE J: The respondent, a ‘high risk offender’ within the meaning of s 5 of the Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA) (‘HRO Act’), opposes the imposition upon him of what would be a third interim supervision order and, ultimately, an extended supervision order.
Background and index offending
In September 2016, the respondent was sentenced to nine months imprisonment for the aggravated offence of possessing child exploitation material.[1] That sentence was suspended on the basis of a bond. The conviction led to the respondent having reporting obligations as a ‘registrable offender’ under the Child Sex Offenders…
Continue reading Attorney-General (SA) v Williams
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Attorney-General (SA) v Williams [2025] SASC 164
- Case
- [2025] SASC 164
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered various factors, including the respondent's history of non-compliance, externalisation of blame, and lack of transparency. Dr Nambiar and Mr Norton, who assessed the respondent, expressed concerns about his risk of re-offending. The court noted that while the respondent had not committed any sexual offences while under supervision, his conduct in March 2023, November 2023, and March 2024 indicated ongoing non-compliant and maladaptive behaviour. Given these factors, the court concluded that there was a perceptible and non-speculative risk of re-offending that justified the imposition of an interim extended supervision order.
The court ordered a Section 7(3) report to further assess the respondent's risk factors and treatment needs. The final decision on whether to impose an extended supervision order would be made after considering the additional report and any further evidence or argument presented. The court emphasised the importance of balancing the respondent's need for supervision with his potential for rehabilitation and reintegration into society.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
By way of reply submissions, the applicant submitted that the lack of sexual offending in the recent past needed to be viewed in the context that the respondent had been subject to supervision. That is true but it reflects a recurring conundrum that arises when a person is not given an opportunity to demonstrate compliant behaviour on an unsupervised basis. Consideration The respondent’s circumstances are difficult and unfortunate. On the one hand, there is much that may be able to be said against the imposition of a third extended supervision order in due course. The respondent has remained abstinent from alcohol and has participated in significant individual counselling. He has not committed any sexual offending in the period he has been under supervision. It is also arguable that fewer restrictions may assist the respondent in pursuing employment and social re-integration, which will be important for his further rehabilitation. However, focusing upon whether, on the basis required by s 9(1), there is an appreciable risk of offending absent supervision such as would justify the imposition of an extended supervision order, the material before me suggests an affirmative answer. Dr Nambiar’s opinion was that the May 2017 offending, committed whilst the respondent was subject to a suspended sentence bond in relation to possession of child exploitation material, represented a worrying escalation. That seems self-evidently true. Those who have assessed the respondent have expressed a concern about the respondent’s tendency to externalise blame and decline to face up to the sexual misconduct by disclaiming a clear memory due to alcohol use. It is difficult to be confident, in those circumstances, that abstinence from alcohol is truly indicative of a reduction in criminogenic factors. Mr Norton’s opinion was that the respondent’s lack of transparency makes it difficult to know whether he has made more progress than his most recent risk assessment suggests. The respondent’s conduct in March 2023, November 2023 and March 2024, whilst not involving sexual misconduct, involved non-compliant and maladaptive behaviour of a kind that remains troubling given the respondent’s demonstrated reluctance to be open and transparent about the circumstances of his earlier sexual offending. I consider that the requirements for the imposition of an interim supervision order are satisfied. On the basis required by s 9(1), the material supporting the application discloses a risk of re-offending and therefore a risk to the safety of the community that is perceptible and non-speculative and which would justify a further extended supervision order in the relevant sense. That is not to say that an extended supervision order is inevitable. The s 7(3) report that has been ordered will, in my view, be important in ascertaining whether the respondent has made more progress in reducing his dynamic risk factors than those who have assessed the respondent have felt able to assess. Further evidence and argument will elucidate whether the respondent’s ongoing treatment needs demand a further period of supervision or whether, on the contrary, given his particular personality, his prospects of avoiding re-offending would be the same, or perhaps even enhanced, if unsupervised.