Attorney-General (SA) v Woods-Pierce - [2022] SASC 60

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)

ATTORNEY-GENERAL (SA) v WOODS-PIERCE
[2022] SASC 60
Judgment of the Honourable Justice McDonald
22 June 2022
CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - POST-CUSTODIAL ORDERS - OTHER TYPES OF POST-CUSTODIAL ORDERS - OTHER MATTERS
CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - SENTENCING ORDERS - ORDERS AND DECLARATIONS RELATING TO SERIOUS OR VIOLENT OFFENDERS OR DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDERS
On 3 December 2014, the respondent was convicted in the Youth Court of serious sexual and violent offences. The respondent was sentenced as an adult in the District Court to a term of imprisonment for seven years with a non-parole period of four years, commencing on 17 June 2014. The Attorney-General made an application that the respondent be the subject of an extended supervision order (ESO) upon his release from custody. The application was dismissed on 16 June 2022 and the respondent was released from custody, having served the entirety of his sentence imposed for the index offending. The Attorney-General appealed that decision in the Court of Appeal, and that appeal was ultimately allowed, reviving the original application for an ESO. The respondent has been subject to an interim supervision order (ISO) since 27 October 2021.
The respondent opposed the making of an ESO and contended that, despite satisfying the two necessary preconditions enlivening the Court’s jurisdiction to make an ESO, the Court should exercise its discretion to not make such an order.
Held:
1. the respondent be subject to an extended supervision order for a period of 18 months pursuant to s 7(1) of the Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA).
Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA) s 6(1), s 7(1), s 7(5), s 9, s 10(2); Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 24(1), s 39(1)(b), s 48(1); Young Offenders Act 1993 (SA) s 29, referred to.
Attorney-General (SA) v Woods-Pearce [2021] SASC 77; Attorney-General (SA) v Woods-Pierce [2021] SASCA 112, discussed.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL (SA) v WOODS-PIERCE
[2022] SASC 60
Criminal: Application for Extended Supervision Order
McDONALD J.

This is an application by the Attorney-General that the respondent, Mr Aiden Woods-Pierce, be subjected to an extended supervision order (‘ESO’) for two years under the Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA) (‘the HRO Act’).
The respondent opposes the making of the ESO. There is no dispute that the two necessary preconditions enlivening the Court’s jurisdiction to make an ESO under s 7 of the HRO Act are satisfied, namely that:
1.The respondent is a high risk offender so defined under the HRO Act;[1] and;
2.The application was made within 12 months of the relevant expiry date.
[1] Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA) s 7(1).
Background
On 3 December 2014, the respondent was convicted of the following offences:
1.Aggravated kidnaping contrary to s 39(1)(b) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) (‘the CLCA’);
2.Aggravated cause harm contrary to s 24(1) of the CLCA; and
3.Rape contrary to s 48(1) of the CLCA.
These charges arose out of an incident 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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Attorney-General (SA) v Woods-Pierce and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2022] SASC 60
Decision Date: 22 June 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Attorney-General (SA) v Woods-Pierce, the South Australian Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether the Attorney-General could make an extended supervision order against a high-risk offender who was a minor at the time of their conviction. The respondent, who had previously been convicted of aggravated kidnapping, aggravated causing harm, and rape, was a high-risk offender under the Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA) and the application for the extended supervision order was made within the stipulated timeframe. The key issue before the court was whether the respondent's status as a minor at the time of the offence meant that the High Risk Offenders Act did not apply to them.

The court considered the provisions of the High Risk Offenders Act and the legislative intent behind it. The court found that the High Risk Offenders Act was designed to address serious and violent offenders, and the fact that the respondent was a minor at the time of the offence did not negate the seriousness of the crimes committed. The court also noted that the High Risk Offenders Act was intended to provide a mechanism for the protection of the public, and that the respondent's history of violent criminal behaviour posed a significant risk to the community. The court held that the fact that the respondent was a minor at the time of the offence did not exempt them from the operation of the High Risk Offenders Act.

Following the court's decision, an extended supervision order was made against the respondent. The order required the respondent to comply with a range of conditions, including regular reporting to a supervising officer, restrictions on their movements, and requirements to participate in rehabilitation programs. The court's decision emphasised the importance of protecting the community from high-risk offenders, regardless of their age at the time of the offence. The court also recognised the need for a flexible and effective legal framework to address the risks posed by serious and violent offenders.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

The respondent opposes the making of the ESO. There is no dispute that the two necessary preconditions enlivening the Court’s jurisdiction to make an ESO under s 7 of the HRO Act are satisfied, namely that:1.The respondent is a high risk offender so defined under the HRO Act;[1] and;2.The application was made within 12 months of the relevant expiry date.[1] Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA) s 7(1).Background On 3 December 2014, the respondent was convicted of the following offences:1.Aggravated kidnaping contrary to s 39(1)(b) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) (‘the CLCA’);2.Aggravated cause harm contrary to s 24(1) of the CLCA; and3.Rape contrary to s 48(1) of the CLCA. These charges arose out of an incident in which the respondent held a 21-year-old Case Manager for a youth services organisation hostage at his home over an extended period. During that time, he assaulted, threatened and raped her. He also struck her to the head with a sword causing a large gash and further humiliated and degraded her by compelling her to view child pornography. The respondent committed these offences on 17 June 2014 when he was aged 17 years old. The respondent was tried in the Youth Court and committed to the District Court for sentence pursuant to s 29 of the Young Offenders Act 1993 (SA). He was sentenced to imprisonment for seven years with a non-parole period of four years to commence from 17 June 2014. The head sentence expired on 16 June 2021.First extended supervision order application On 11 May 2021, the Attorney-General made an application for an ESO against the respondent. That application was opposed by the respondent. On 16 June 2021 the matter came before David J for submissions. The issue at the centre of both parties’ submissions was whether the fact that the respondent was a youth at the time that he was convicted of the offences meant that he was not subject to the operation of the HRO Act by virtue of s 6(1). On 16 June 2021, David J dismissed the application for an ESO, accepting the respondent’s argument that he did not fall under the operation of the HRO Act.[2] Given this was the date of the expiry of the respondent’s non-parole period, the effect of that order was that the respondent was released into the community with no form of supervision or support in place. [2] Attorney-General (SA) v Woods-Pearce [2021] SASC 77. The Attorney-General subsequently appealed the decision of David J. On 14 October 2021, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and remitted the Attorney-General’s application for an ESO for further consideration.[3] The effect of that was that the respondent, who had been granted his unconditional liberty, was once again facing the potential of restrictions to his movements by government authorities.[3] Attorney-General (SA) v Woods-Pierce [2021] SASCA 112.The interim supervision order On 27 October 2021, the matter came before Peek J. On that occasion the Attorney-General sought an interim supervision order (‘ISO’), pursuant to s 9 and s 10 (2) of the HRO Act.

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

Full text does not contain this section.