Attorney-General (SA) v Woods-Pierce; Treloar v Attorney-General (SA); Shi v Attorney-General (SA)

The Supreme Court of South Australia considered appeals by the Attorney-General against decisions concerning the application of the High Risk Offenders Act 2015 (SA) (HRO Act) to individuals who committed offences as youths but were later subject to applications for Extended Supervision Orders (ESOs). The respondents, Mr Woods-Pierce, Mr Treloar, and Mr Shi, were all convicted of serious offences. Mr Woods-Pierce committed his qualifying offending as a youth, was sentenced as an adult, and was an adult when the ESO application was made. Mr Treloar and Mr Shi's cases involved different factual circumstances but also raised questions about the HRO Act's applicability.

The central legal issues before the Court were: (1) whether the disapplication of the HRO Act to youths under s 6(1) applied at the time of the offending or at the time the operative provisions of the Act were sought to be invoked; and (2) whether an ESO could be made in relation to a person who was a youth at the time of their qualifying offending, but was sentenced as an adult to imprisonment and was an adult at the time the application for the ESO was made. The Court also considered the interpretation of "imprisonment" in the context of s 5 of the HRO Act, specifically whether it encompassed youth detention.

The Court reasoned that the disapplication of the HRO Act to youths under s 6(1) is directed towards the point in time when the operative provisions of the Act are sought to be invoked, not the time of the offending. This interpretation allows for the HRO Act to apply to individuals who were youths when they committed qualifying offences, provided they are adults at the time of the ESO application and meet other criteria. The Court affirmed that an ESO may be made in relation to a person who was a youth at the time of their qualifying offending, but was sentenced as an adult to imprisonment and was an adult when the application for the ESO was made. The Court also accepted the Attorney-General's concession that "imprisonment" in s 5 of the HRO Act does not include youth detention.

The Court allowed the Attorney-General's appeal in the case of Mr Woods-Pierce, finding that an ESO could be made in his circumstances. The appeals in the cases of Mr Treloar and Mr Shi were dismissed, as the Court found that they did not meet the criteria for being high risk offenders under the HRO Act.