Attorney-General (SA) v Williams - [2023] SASC 64

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal: Application)

ATTORNEY-GENERAL (SA) v WILLIAMS
[2023] SASC 64
Judgment of the Honourable Justice McIntyre
3 May 2023
CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - SENTENCING ORDERS - ORDERS AND DECLARATIONS RELATING TO SERIOUS OR VIOLENT OFFENDERS OR DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDERS - DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDER
CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - POST-CUSTODIAL ORDERS - OTHER TYPES OF POST-CUSTODIAL ORDERS
On 31 August 2022, this Court made an interim supervision order with respect to the respondent pursuant to s 9 of the Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA) (the Act).
On 21 March 2023, the Parole Board satisfied itself that the respondent had breached three conditions of his interim supervision order on 2 March 2023. Pursuant to s 17(1)(b)(ii), the Parole Board directed that the respondent be detained in custody pending attendance before the Court for determination as to whether a continuing detention order should be made under s 18(2) of the Act.
The respondent contended that an order for continuing detention should not be made as he is unable to receive appropriate treatment in custody.
Held:
1. The referral for a continuing detention order be dismissed.
Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA) ss 7, 15, 17, 18; Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 19(1), referred to.
Police v Sullivan; Attorney-General (SA) v Sullivan [2018] SASC 11, considered.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL (SA) v WILLIAMS
[2023] SASC 64
Criminal: Application
McINTYRE J:

The respondent, Edward Allan Williams, comes before the Court on a referral from the Parole Board under s 17(1)(b)(ii) of the Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act2015 (SA) (the HRO Act). The question for determination by the Court is whether the respondent should be subject to a Continuing Detention Order (CDO).
Background
In September 2016, the respondent was sentenced to nine months imprisonment for the aggravated offence of possessing child exploitation material. That sentence of imprisonment was suspended when he entered into a bond to be of good behaviour for a period of two years. Whilst he was subject to the suspended sentence bond, the respondent committed further offences, namely communicating with the intention of procuring a child for sexual activity and failing to advise ANCOR of his internet access and social media and internet accounts. On 11 April 2019, the respondent was sentenced to two years, five months and 13 days imprisonment for those offences and the suspension of the previous sentence was revoked leading to a head sentence of three years, two months and 13 days. A non-parole period of two years was imposed. At the conclusion of his sentence, the respondent was determined to be a high risk offender and was placed on an Extended Supervision Order (ESO) under s 7(4) of the HRO Act for the period of 2 September 2020 until 1 September 2022.
The respondent breached the terms of the ESO by failing to comply with his reporting obligations under the ESO. On 12 May 2022, the Parole Board issued a warrant that he be remanded in…

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.

Continue reading Attorney-General (SA) v Williams

Details

AGLC: Attorney-General (SA) v Williams [2023] SASC 64
Case: [2023] SASC 64
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Attorney-General (SA) v Williams involves the decision of whether to impose a Continuing Detention Order (CDO) on the respondent, Edward Allan Williams, under section 17(1)(b)(ii) of the Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA). Williams, previously convicted of possessing child exploitation material and other related offences, was subject to a suspended sentence and later an Extended Supervision Order (ESO) upon release. Due to breaches of his ESO, he was remanded in custody. The Parole Board referred the matter to the court to determine if a CDO should be imposed.

The central legal issue was whether Williams posed an appreciable risk to the community that necessitated his continued detention. This required consideration of his criminal history, psychiatric evaluations, and compliance with supervision conditions. The court had to weigh the risk he posed against the rehabilitation opportunities available within and outside of custody.

In reaching its decision, the court reviewed the psychiatric assessments and evidence that Williams posed a high risk of reoffending without treatment and rehabilitation. However, it was noted that the rehabilitation options available within the prison system were limited and delayed, potentially until late 2023 or early 2024. The court concluded that although Williams presented a risk, it was not sufficient to justify indefinite detention without appropriate steps being taken to reduce that risk in a timely manner. The court emphasised the importance of preparing Williams for rehabilitation through individual psychological support, which was not available within the current detention framework.

Ultimately, the court decided that the risk posed by Williams did not warrant continued detention. Despite his resistance to supervision and threats made towards staff, he had not committed any further sexual offences since his release. The court found that his threats were more reflective of his psychological condition rather than serious intent to harm. Consequently, the court ruled against the imposition of a CDO.

In summary, the court ordered that Edward Allan Williams should not be subject to a Continuing Detention Order.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

The respondent, Edward Allan Williams, comes before the Court on a referral from the Parole Board under s 17(1)(b)(ii) of the Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act2015 (SA) (the HRO Act). The question for determination by the Court is whether the respondent should be subject to a Continuing Detention Order (CDO). Background In September 2016, the respondent was sentenced to nine months imprisonment for the aggravated offence of possessing child exploitation material. That sentence of imprisonment was suspended when he entered into a bond to be of good behaviour for a period of two years. Whilst he was subject to the suspended sentence bond, the respondent committed further offences, namely communicating with the intention of procuring a child for sexual activity and failing to advise ANCOR of his internet access and social media and internet accounts. On 11 April 2019, the respondent was sentenced to two years, five months and 13 days imprisonment for those offences and the suspension of the previous sentence was revoked leading to a head sentence of three years, two months and 13 days. A non-parole period of two years was imposed. At the conclusion of his sentence, the respondent was determined to be a high risk offender and was placed on an Extended Supervision Order (ESO) under s 7(4) of the HRO Act for the period of 2 September 2020 until 1 September 2022. The respondent breached the terms of the ESO by failing to comply with his reporting obligations under the ESO. On 12 May 2022, the Parole Board issued a warrant that he be remanded in custody. He was released on 24 August 2022. Also in May 2022, the respondent was charged with failing to comply with reporting obligations associated with his ANCOR registration. Those charges did not proceed. An application was made for a second ESO by way of originating application dated 29 August 2022. An Interim Supervision Order (ISO) was made in those proceedings on 31 August 2022 pending the determination of the application for a second ESO. On 2 March 2023, the Parole Board issued a warrant for the respondent’s arrest under s 15 of the HRO Act following allegations that the respondent had breached conditions one, two and five of his ISO. The warrant was executed on 3 March 2023 and the respondent was taken into custody. He has remained in custody solely on that warrant since that date. On 21 March 2023, the Parole Board was satisfied that the respondent had breached his conditions as follows:·Condition one (good behaviour) by failing to engage with his treatment program, making death threats to program facilitators and Department for Correctional Services (DCS) staff and threatening to commit suicide as reported on 2 March 2023;·Condition two (not to commit offence) by making death threats towards program facilitators and DCS staff on 2 March 2023; and ·Condition five (treatment) by failing to engage in his treatment program on 2 March 2023. The Parole Board directed that the respondent was to remain in custody pending attendance before this Court for determination as to whether a CDO should be made.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

There is little doubt that the respondent breached conditions one and five of his supervision order. In relation to condition two, I note that whilst the respondent made threats to DCS staff and rehabilitation counsellors with OARS Community Transitions, he has not been charged with any offence such as that provided for in s 19(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA). Presumably there was a reasonable possibility that these threats could be dismissed as “sounding off” rather than establishing threats for the purpose of the relevant offence. Whatever the situation, it is clear from the material before me that the respondent is uncooperative, belligerent and aggressive towards program facilitators and DCS staff and that he has breached conditions one and five of his ISO. The key issue for determination is whether the respondent poses an appreciable risk to the community if he is not detained in custody. Medical evidence Prior to making the first ESO, a psychiatric report was obtained under s 7(3)(a) of the HRO Act from Dr Nambiar, clinical director and consultant forensic psychiatrist at Forensic Mental Health Service, dated 15 June 2020. Dr Nambiar considered that the respondent poses a high risk of offending in a sexual manner should he not receive treatment and rehabilitation. The respondent was either in complete denial or minimised his actions by externalising. Dr Nambiar said that the respondent appeared to consider himself a victim of his life circumstances and appeared unwilling to cooperate with any form of treatment, particularly sex offender treatment. Dr Nambiar recommended that the terms of any ESO include a prohibition from accessing the internet through any form of electronic device and referral for sex offender rehabilitation programs, as well as alcohol rehabilitation in order for him to remain abstinent. He also considered that the respondent would benefit from ongoing contact with a psychologist to develop strategies to deal with stress, grief issues, anger issues and suicidal ideation. He may also benefit from time to time from an anti-depressant. Dr Craig Raeside, forensic psychiatrist, provided a report dated 18 January 2023 in relation to the application for a further ESO. Dr Raeside considered that as the respondent had not received any treatment, his risk remains unchanged; he is at a high risk of further sexual offending. Dr Raeside therefore supported the application for a further extended supervision order. Dr Raeside was unable to clearly identify any psychiatric illness. He considered that the respondent had some depressive symptoms likely to amount to an adjustment disorder with depressed and anxious mood. He also appeared to have had an alcohol use disorder in the past but not currently. There was also a history of post-traumatic stress symptoms but no indication of a current post-traumatic stress disorder. The respondent’s history suggested antisocial personality traits if not an antisocial personality disorder. In relation to the question of treatment and rehabilitation, Dr Raeside commented as follows: Nevertheless, the difficulty relates primarily to assisting Mr Williams to engage in appropriate treatment and rehabilitation that would effectively decrease his risk of further sexual offending. I would suggest a combination of ongoing individual psychological therapy from an appropriate qualified therapist with sexual offenders, as well as further attempts for the Owenia House. Psychological therapy might assist him in this regard.Additionally, psychological therapy might assist him to look at more adaptive ways of dealing with stress to assist him in his interpersonal relationships that are clearly suffering at present and causing a barrier with Community Corrections. The submissions

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Ms Hawkshaw says that, in terms of rehabilitation in the community, the respondent is currently on the SBC program waitlist at Owenia House. They have a group scheduled to commence in October 2023. The program will run for 12 to 15 months. Once the respondent commences the SBC program, individual sessions with a psychologist would be available as part of the program. Once the respondent is able to show progress, alternative treatment and program referrals may be considered in addition to the SBC program. Ms Hawkshaw says that DCS received a recommendation from Owenia House on 24 January 2023 that the respondent engage in private psychological support in preparation for joining the community-based SBC program. Ms Hawkshaw contacted Mr Fallo’s rooms who indicated that there is a waitlist of two to three weeks to see Mr Fallo. Consideration I am satisfied that the respondent presents an appreciable risk to the community based upon his history, the reports of Dr Nambiar and Dr Raeside, and the material from the Parole Board and DCS. However, I must also be satisfied that detention is required to address that risk for the safety of the community. The community is protected whilst the respondent remains in detention. He cannot, however, be detained indefinitely. It is clear from the reports of Dr Nambiar and Dr Raeside that, without appropriate rehabilitation, the risk to the community remains unchanged. The only rehabilitation available to the respondent in prison is the group SBC programs and associated individual sessions. At present there is no definite start date for the SBC programs. At the earliest, they will start in late 2023 but may not start until early 2024. The SBC program lasts for 12 to 15 months. This means that, if detained, the respondent will spend at least 21 months in custody in order to complete the SBC program. Further, whilst he is detained, the respondent will receive no individual treatment, as recommended by Dr Raeside and Owenia House, to prepare him to participate in the SBC program. The likelihood is that the respondent’s anxiety about participating will manifest as aggression, lack of cooperation and belligerence as it has in the past. Accordingly, there will be no steps taken to lower the respondent’s risk whilst he remains in detention until, at the earliest, late 2023. Moreover, it is unlikely that, without appropriate preparation, the respondent will greatly benefit from the SBC program, if at all. There is more flexibility and a greater likelihood of appropriate rehabilitation in the community. It is highly regrettable that the rehabilitation options available to the respondent in custody are so constrained. If a person who has served a sentence is required to be detained for the safety of the community, then the least that can be expected is that all appropriate steps will be taken in a timely matter to lower that person’s risk of reoffending. I am not satisfied that the risk posed by the respondent requires him to be detained. He has been resistant to supervision to put it mildly but, whilst he has breached the ISO and the ESO, he has not been convicted of any further offending since 2 September 2020. In particular, he has not committed any further acts of sexual offending. Whilst the threats by the respondent towards DCS and other rehabilitation providers are unacceptable and inappropriate, they have not resulted in charges. This suggests, consistent with the assessments referred to above, that the threats were viewed in the context of the respondent’s psychological condition to be “sounding off” rather than serious threats to kill or self-harm. There is no suggestion that the respondent’s conduct went beyond the making of threats. There is further no suggestion that he has been abusing alcohol which Dr Nambiar considered to be a factor in his offending.