Attorney-General v Colangelo (No 2) - [2025] SASC 174

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal: Application)

ATTORNEY-GENERAL v COLANGELO (No 2)
[2025] SASC 174
Judgment of the Honourable Justice McDonald (ex tempore)
8 October 2025
CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - SENTENCING ORDERS - ORDERS AND DECLARATIONS RELATING TO SERIOUS OR VIOLENT OFFENDERS OR DANGEROUS SEXUAL OFFENDERS
CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - POST-CUSTODIAL ORDERS - OTHER TYPES OF POST-CUSTODIAL ORDERS
This is an application for an Extended Detention Order (EDO) pursuant to s 57(3) of the Sentencing Act 2017 (SA) and, in the alternative, an application for an Extended Supervision Order (‘ESO’) pursuant to s 7(1) of the Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA) (‘the HRO Act’). On 15 January 2025, it was ordered that the respondent be the subject of an Interim Detention Order (‘IDO’) pending the outcome of these applications.
It is the applicant’s contention that the respondent should be subject to an EDO on the basis of the expert opinions that he is unwilling to control his sexual instincts, as legislatively defined. It is the applicant’s submission that it is appropriate for the Court to exercise its discretion to make an EDO having regard to the purpose and object of s 57 of the Sentencing Act 2017 (SA), that being to protect the community from sexual offenders where the risk posed by such a person is such that it is inappropriate for them to be released.
The respondent does not oppose the imposition of an ESO, however he opposes the making of any form of detention order. The respondent relies upon the availability of such conditions under an ESO as an argument against the making of an EDO; that is that the option of an ESO provides the community with a level of protection that makes it unnecessary to go to the length of keeping the respondent indefinitely in custody. The respondent also submits that given there is now a greater understanding of the complex issues facing the respondent, his risk is more open to management within the community.
Held:
1. The application for an EDO is refused; and
2. The application for an ESO is granted. The respondent is to be the subject of an ESO for the period of five years.

Child Sex Offenders Registration Act 2006 (SA); Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 63; Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA) s 7(1); Sentencing Act 2017 (SA) s 57, referred to.
R v Hoare [2017] SASC 7; R v Schuster (2016) 125 SASR 388, applied.
Thompson v Attorney-General (SA) (2019) 133 SASR 302, considered.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL v COLANGELO (No 2)
[2025] SASC 174
Criminal: Application
McDONALD J:

The Attorney-General has made an application for an Extended Detention Order (‘EDO’) pursuant to s 57(3) of the Sentencing Act 2017 (SA) and, in the alternative, an application for an Extended Supervision Order (‘ESO’) pursuant to s 7(1) of the Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA) (‘the HRO Act’).
Mr Colangelo does not oppose the imposition of an ESO. In fact, he relies upon the availability of such conditions under an order as an argument against the making of an EDO; that is that the option of an ESO provides the community with a level of protection that makes it unnecessary to go to the length of keeping Mr Colangelo indefinitely in custody.
The imposition of an Interim Detention Order
On 15 January 2025, I made an order that Mr Colangelo be the subject of an Interim Detention Order (‘IDO’)[1] pending the outcome of these applications. I did so on the basis that on the limited material before me at that time, Mr Colangelo’s history and poor response to treatment supported a finding that he posed such a great risk to the safety of the community, that it was necessary to detain him in custody until I had received all of the relevant information, including reports from two appropriately qualified psychiatrists, to enable me to come to a decision on the application.
[1] Sentencing Act 2017 (SA) s 57(3).
Since that time, I have received reports from Dr Craig Raeside and Dr Catherine Crouch. Dr Raeside and Dr Crouch also gave evidence concurrently. Before I come to that evidence, it is of utility to set out some of the detail of Mr Colangelo’s background, offending history and his previous responses to therapy. I canvassed each of these topics in considerable detail in my reasons for imposing the IDO. I do not propose to repeat them in detail but will instead endeavour to summarise those matters most relevant to my determination of this application.
Background
Mr Colangelo grew up with his parents and four younger sisters. He had a stable upbringing and his parents remain together. They continue to be supportive of their son. Mr Colangelo’s parents have attended every hearing in these proceedings, and there have been many. Over that period they have heard considerable detail about Mr Colangelo’s offending, the risk that he poses of reoffending, the concerns the psychiatrists hold about him and the seriousness with which the courts and the community regard his conduct. Whilst at the outset of the process, Mr Colangelo’s parents may have been somewhat naive about these matters, they are now fully informed. For reasons that I will come to, this is a relevant consideration in determining whether appropriate measures can be put in place to protect the community, in the event that an EDO is not made.
Offending history
Mr Colangelo has a history of sexual offending, which commenced in 2005. His most recent offending, the index offences, was detected on 30 January 2022, when police located an amount of child exploitation material (‘CEM’) on Mr Colangelo’s electronic devices. At that time Mr Colangelo was a registerable offender under the Child Sex Offenders Registration Act 2006 (SA). He was also the subject of a paedophile restraining order. It was as a consequence of the police conducting compliance checks under that Act that they came to inspect Mr Colangelo’s devices.
Generally speaking, Mr Colangelo’s sexual offending can be divided into two categories: exhibitionist behaviour and CEM offences.
Between 2007 and 2012, Mr Colangelo was convicted of four offences, which involved him masturbating in public places, at least some of which occurred in the vicinity of children, or places children frequent. Of note, when Mr Colangelo committed the last offence, he was on a good behaviour bond for similar offending.
In 2016, Mr Colangelo moved on to commit CEM offences.
On 31 January 2018, Mr Colangelo was sentenced to a period of imprisonment for two counts of possessing CEM. It was as a consequence of this offending that Mr Colangelo became a serious registrable offender, which led to the search that resulted in his most recent charges. These were two counts of possessing CEM, two counts of aggravated possessing CEM and two counts of disseminating CEM. It is the last two offences that are the index offences, which resulted in Mr Colangelo becoming liable for the imposition of an EDO. It should be noted that these offences involved a large number of images and videos, some of which fell into the most serious category of CEM.
On 5 December 2022, Mr Colangelo was sentenced for this offending. He received a sentence of two years, three months and 15 days imprisonment. That sentence was reduced by three months to take into account the time he had already spent in custody. A non-parole period of one year, nine months and 12 days was fixed.
It is of note that whilst Mr Colangelo has committed numerous sexual offences, some of which are of a particularly serious nature, he has not committed any offence involving physical contact (‘a contact offence’) with a child. I have been advised by counsel who appeared for the Attorney-General that, as far as she is aware, this is the first application made pursuant to s 57 of the Sentencing Act 2017 (SA) in which the serious sexual offending relied upon does not involve any form of contact offending.
Response to therapy
Over the period of his offending, Mr Colangelo has received a considerable amount of therapy in relation to his sexually deviant behaviour.
In 2006, Mr Colangelo first commenced receiving sexual offender treatment in the community at Owenia House. That treatment continued until 2009. There was then a further period of treatment at Owenia House between 2012 and 2014. The outcome of both periods of treatment was far from positive, with Mr Colangelo failing to become fully engaged, missing many program sessions across both periods.
Since that time, whilst in custody, Mr Colangelo has twice participated in the Sexual Behaviours Clinic. The first SBC program that he engaged in took place between 8 January 2019 and 2 October 2019. Mr Colangelo participated in all components of the program, attending a hundred percent of the group sessions, equating to 218 group treatment hours.
Despite this, Mr Colangelo appeared to remain disengaged during sessions and the facilitators formed the belief that there were barriers to his progress, which were predominantly maintained by an unwillingness to fully address his sexual offending. Overall, Mr Colangelo’s participation and engagement were described as minimal and his attitudinal and behavioural changes were negligible.
On his return to custody, after committing the most recent offences, Mr Colangelo again participated in the SBC program. This took place between 26 April 2023 and 14 March 2024. Once again, Mr Colangelo attended a hundred percent of the group treatment hours available to him. Additionally, he received approximately 23 hours of individual treatment.
On this occasion, although the SBC post-treatment report was more positive than that provided in 2019, there were still a number of significant concerns about Mr Colangelo’s level of insight into his risk factors and consequently the risk of him reoffending.
Whilst Mr Colangelo displayed difficulty in meaningfully engaging in group task processes, it was the belief of the facilitators that this was linked to his limited capacity and did not appear to be reflective of resistance on his part. Throughout the program, Mr Colangelo consistently reported having difficulty with expressive language in both written and verbal tasks and it was observed that he struggled to articulate and explain himself. Mr Colangelo also had difficulty in completing his coursework, and much of his written work was sparse and incomplete. The facilitators expressed the view that whilst this may have represented some lack of motivation, this was likely influenced by his limited capacity.
It was observed that by the end of the course there was some improvement in Mr Colangelo’s insight, in that he “demonstrated a willingness to disclose, consider, and acknowledge various factors, for example, his emotional states, deviant sexual interests, and lifestyle factors, that precipitated and maintained his offending”.[2] However, it appeared to the facilitators that his insight into his offending was simplistic, and it was unclear as to how genuine and comprehensive his understanding was. Of most concern, Mr Colangelo disclosed that he continued to be attracted to females between the ages of 11 and 13, and acknowledged that he had fantasized about having sex with them. He also expressed concerns that his offending would progress and escalate to a contact offence involving a child, including, potentially, his own daughter.
[2] Sexual Behaviour Clinic Post-Treatment Report dated 5 June 2024 at 5.
At the time that I made the decision to impose the IDO, I placed considerable weight on Mr Colangelo’s concerns about his offending escalating. Since that time, I have had the benefit of reading the reports and hearing the evidence of Dr Raeside and Dr Crouch about the limitations to the reliance that should be placed on this statement, given Mr Colangelo’s communication difficulties. I will return to this topic when I come to deal with the evidence of Dr Raeside and Dr Crouch.
Chromosome 16p11.2 deletion syndrome
Shortly before I ordered that Mr Colangelo be the subject of an IDO, he was diagnosed with a chromosomal disorder, chromosome 16p11.2 deletion syndrome. This syndrome is caused by a missing piece of DNA from one chromosome 16. The consequence of having this syndrome is variable. The most common problem is language and developmental difficulties, such that people with this chromosomal disorder often need support with their speech and learning.
It was the submission of Mr Blake, who appeared for Mr Colangelo, that the detection of this abnormality is an important development in that it now provides an explanation for some of the communication difficulties that Mr Colangelo has experienced throughout his life and, of particular relevance, has experienced whilst undertaking the SBC programs.
Reports of Dr Raeside and Dr Crouch
Both Dr Raeside and Dr Crouch made observations about Mr Colangelo’s communication difficulties when they interviewed him for the purpose of preparing their reports, although they acknowledged that the situation was exacerbated by the fact that the interviews were conducted by audiovisual link.
Dr Raeside
Dr Raeside interviewed Mr Colangelo on 3 March 2025. He described Mr Colangelo as having “significant communication difficulties, with slow and hesitant speech”[3] that appeared to be aggravated by anxiety. Mr Colangelo had particular difficulty with abstract questions and required specific closed-ended questions that carried the risk of leading his responses.
[3] Report of Dr Raeside dated 5 March 2025 at 2.
In Dr Raeside’s opinion, Mr Colangelo has no psychiatric disorder or prior psychiatric illness, nor does he have any drug or alcohol-related issues. He noted that there have been conflicting opinions about Mr Colangelo’s intellectual ability. In assessments, he has a history of scoring in the average range with respect to his non-verbal scales, but lower on the verbal scale. Dr Raeside opined that Mr Colangelo functions at the borderline level.
Dr Raeside expressed the view that Mr Colangelo’s chromosomal disorder appears to primarily account for his underlying language disorder.
Dr Raeside was advised by Mr Colangelo that he had previously been assessed as having Autism Spectrum Disorder (‘ASD’), which given the complexity of Mr Colangelo’s presentation, appeared to be an appropriate diagnosis.
Finally, and relevant to this application, Dr Raeside diagnosed Mr Colangelo with nonexclusive paedophilia, meaning that he has a primary sexual attraction to children but also continues to be sexually attracted to adults.
In his report, Dr Raeside canvassed the materials that he had received in relation to the therapy that Mr Colangelo had undertaken at Owenia House and as part of the SBC program. He made the apposite observation that it was of concern that in the context of conflicting reports about Mr Colangelo’s intellectual capacity, he had participated in the Owenia House program twice and the SBC‑based prison program twice, and was reported to have experienced difficulties associated with his various disabilities throughout the programs. Dr Raeside raised the obvious question of why, in those circumstances, Mr Colangelo had not been considered for the modified SBC-me program, designed specifically for those with a lower intellectual function?
Based on the material that Dr Raeside received about Mr Colangelo’s responsiveness to the therapy that he has undertaken, Dr Raeside observed that not only has it failed to reduce Mr Colangelo’s risk of further serious sexual offending, but that Mr Colangelo himself expressed concerns that his offending would progress and escalate to a contact offence involving a child.
As I alluded to earlier, Dr Raeside however cautioned against placing too much weight on this comment. He said: [4]
I would suggest that this comment not be taken too literally given his expressive language disorder, difficulty communicating his feelings, and concrete thinking. He acknowledges that he will continue to be of some risk and requires further assistance.
[4] Ibid at 11.
In evidence, Dr Crouch was asked whether she agreed with Dr Raeside’s observations about this comment made by Mr Colangelo. She said: [5]
I think it’s very reasonable what Dr Raeside has suggested. I think ultimately it’s hard to know what that comment kind of meant. Certainly a lot of that discussion would have happened during the SBC, talking about escalation of risk and contact offending and things like that, it’s the ability that that is one of the phrases that he kind of was able to learn and retain as a way to identify a future risk factor. It is difficult to know how much of that relates to that concrete thinking pattern and also that idea of almost acquiescing to questions.
[5] Transcript dated 25 June 2025 at 29.
Dr Raeside expressed the view that despite the therapy he has received, Mr Colangelo remains at a high to very high risk of committing a further serious sexual offence. In particular, his lack of response to the previous sexual offender therapy and the quick return to sexual offending following his release from custody, even under a paedophile restraining order, suggests a poor prognosis.
Dr Raeside acknowledged, however, that there is a distinction between a finding that Mr Colangelo is at a very high risk of further serious sexual offending, particularly involving CEM, and being unwilling or unable to control his conduct for the purposes of making an EDO.
In terms of the risk of Mr Colangelo escalating to contact offending, Dr Raeside expressed the view that the risk is at least above-average, putting it at a moderate to high risk of moving on to commit a contact offence. Dr Raeside qualified that view on the basis that much would depend on practical issues, such as access to a child and the more likely scenario was for Mr Colangelo to become isolated and to prefer online material to actual contact with children.
It was Dr Raeside’s opinion that for the purposes of the test for an EDO, Mr Colangelo is unwilling, according to the definition, to control his sexual instincts, in that he is at high risk of returning to sexual offending behaviour if given the opportunity. This assessment was based in part on Mr Colangelo’s limited insight into his offending, and an absence of realistic plans to reduce the risk in the future.
Dr Crouch
Dr Crouch generally concurred with the views expressed by Dr Raeside. Her observations of Mr Colangelo at the interview were that he appeared somewhat anxious and embarrassed. His conversation was stilted, staccato in nature and at times with poor articulation. Dr Crouch described Mr Colangelo’s speech as not free-flowing or detailed in its content. She said: [6]
At times his responses were slow to questions, even requiring further prompting. He largely failed to engage in any discussion around his sexual offending, his speech was more fluent when talking about other topics, although was never considered to be free-flowing. Overall, the general detail was lacking.
[6] Report of Dr Crouch dated 30 April 2025 at 8.
In her report, Dr Crouch also made reference to a neuropsychological report prepared by Dr Scamps in 2017, which was before Mr Colangelo was diagnosed with a chromosomal disorder. At the time that the report was prepared, Dr Scamps considered that it was likely that Mr Colangelo suffered from a language disorder due to discrepancies in verbal comprehension and perceptual reasoning. She noted that his language was simplistic and not spontaneous; he demonstrated limited vocabulary, concrete thinking and poor verbal learning. Dr Scamps considered that the disorder was of moderate severity and impacted his expression more than his comprehension.

Dr Crouch conducted an assessment of Mr Colangelo’s risk of future sexual offending using a structured professional judgment risk assessment tool – ‘The Risk for Sexual Violence Protocol’. Dr Crouch acknowledged, however, that there were several factors that needed to be considered when undertaking a risk assessment for Mr Colangelo. She said: [7]
His difficulties with verbal expression poses significant challenges in understanding Mr Colangelo’s belief system, understanding of his therapeutic engagement and his future plans. These speech impairments coupled with his concrete thinking style and self-reported diagnosis of ASD have impacts in the factors considered related to his risk of sexual offending. It was further noted that there was a pattern of acquiescing or providing non-committal responses which can at times hamper the assessment. It was further noted that there were elements of impression management.
[7] Ibid at 12-13.
With those caveats in place, Dr Crouch assessed that Mr Colangelo remained at high risk of engaging in further sexual offending. In particular, he continued to display numerous static and dynamic risk factors which had shown minimal change despite intervention and periods of incarceration. Of significance, Dr Crouch found that he appeared to have minimal insight into his offending and there was a degree of minimisation and a lack of ability to engage in future planning and risk management.
In terms of the test for an EDO, Dr Crouch identified that, in addition to being at high risk of further sexual offending, Mr Colangelo had numerous risk factors that impact on his ability to engage in intervention to address his deviant sexual interests. His ASD, his chromosomal deletion disorder and his speech impairment all impact in that manner.
Taking all of these matters into account, Dr Crouch arrived at the view that Mr Colangelo remains at high risk of future sexual offending and is unwilling to control his sexual instincts. She went on to suggest, however, that consideration should be given to whether sufficient community-based measures could be instituted to modify the risk to a more acceptable level.
The concurrent evidence of Dr Raeside and Dr Crouch
As mentioned, Dr Raeside and Dr Crouch gave evidence concurrently. Much of their evidence was a confirmation of the information that was contained within their reports. There were three overlapping topics or themes that arose during the experts’ evidence that are worth mentioning. These were Mr Colangelo’s communication issues and his intellectual function, the time that Mr Colangelo has spent undertaking therapy for sexual offenders and the risk of Mr Colangelo escalating to contact offending.
Communication issues and intellectual functioning
In evidence, Dr Raeside reiterated that upon meeting with Mr Colangelo for the purposes of preparing the report, it became immediately apparent that he had issues with language, both in receptive and expressive language, that required the simplification of questions. In addition, he was aware of Mr Colangelo’s borderline intellectual capacity, so he took care to not overwhelm him or use leading questions where possible.
Dr Raeside gave an example of the complexities that arose as a consequence of Mr Colangelo’s concrete thinking. In the interview Dr Raeside asked Mr Colangelo about his sexual attraction towards children. Initially Mr Colangelo acknowledged a sexual attraction to children but later, when the topic came up again, he agreed to having previously had a sexual attraction to children, but quickly added “but not now”. Dr Raeside explained that whilst it may appear that Mr Colangelo was being inconsistent, and potentially deceitful, there was an alternative explanation, which was that Mr Colangelo thought that when Dr Raeside asked him the question Mr Colangelo meant “then and there” whilst talking to Dr Raeside, which may be why he reinforced the answer by saying ‘not now’, all of which may technically be correct.
Dr Raeside told the Court that he did not pick up on any deliberate deceit on the part of Mr Colangelo, rather there was a degree of minimisation with a lack of insight, combined with his limited intellectual capacity.
Dr Crouch gave evidence that Mr Colangelo’s language difficulties have a significant impact on his ability to build rapport and that it is further complicated by his ASD.
Dr Raeside agreed with Dr Crouch and went on to elaborate on the impact of Mr Colangelo’s language disorder on his ability to gain benefit from therapy. He explained: [8]
In terms of getting help, most therapeutic approaches depend on a degree of language, that is, talking. In these types of conditions, at least engaging with a therapist in whatever activities and then reflecting back on what they’ve learnt, and again, he’s had those four community and prison-based sex offender programs which, whether they’re in a group or individual sessions certainly depend on language. There is some writing done but effectively his language disorder is a significant barrier to him getting the help, or not getting help, being able to benefit from any help that is offered to him. But it’s not just a language, his intellectual capacity and his ASD, with the social impairments, he’s got an unfortunate combination of conditions.
The time that Mr Colangelo has spent undertaking therapy for sexual offending
[8] Transcript dated 25 June 2025 at 38-39.
This unfortunate combination of conditions is no doubt part of the reason why Mr Colangelo has failed to derive the expected benefits from the various sexual offenders courses that he has undertaken.
It was Dr Raeside’s evidence that Mr Colangelo presents as someone with great difficulty in understanding his behaviour, let alone coming up with solutions for how to better control it. He explained: [9]
The problem is he’s unusual in the sense that he’s probably had more sex offender therapy than most people that I see in this situation, to community-based programs, to prison-based programs. They’re usually reluctant to do that and so he’s certainly had lots of treatment options and his history of offending shows that it has not made much difference at all.
[9] Ibid at 31.
Dr Crouch was also asked about how Mr Colangelo’s concrete thinking impacts on his ability to engage in intervention. She responded: [10]
It’s not a single thing. I don’t think we can pull out each little difficulty that Mr Colangelo has. It’s everything as a whole. So the elements of the expressive language disorder, so the ability to express his thoughts into words, the ASD causing that pattern of thinking that it is very black and white with an inability to consider more abstract concepts, and then combined with some of the interpersonal things, these all interrelate together, they’re not a single one-off aspect that causes specific difficulty, they’re together, globally, present difficulties.
[10] Ibid at 43.
When asked directly whether taking these difficulties into account Mr Colangelo was able to derive any benefit from intervention, she said:[11]
From the information we have, the impression is no. As we’ve already mentioned, he’s someone that’s actually engaged in four separate treatment programs with no shift or meaningful shift in any of the identifiable kind of risk factors. So the concern is what further intervention could realistically be done that would change that.
[11] Ibid at 43.
Given the issues confronting Mr Colangelo, Dr Crouch, like Dr Raeside, expressed considerable surprise that he had not been recommended for the SBC‑me program whilst in custody.
The risk of Mr Colangelo escalating to contact offending
Consistent with his report, Dr Raeside gave evidence that the risk of Mr Colangelo committing a contact offence was different to the risk of him committing a further CEM offence. He explained:[12]
… I think his risk of further use of CEM is higher than it is going to contact offending against a child. Certainly there could be circumstances in which the opportunity’s there, he may progress to a contact offence against a child but, comparatively, you know, given his offending, the risk is higher for continuing to access online material rather than suddenly going out and offending against a child, although that risk is still significant.
[12] Ibid at 42.
Dr Raeside explained that in assessing the issue of risk, there are different aspects of risk to be considered. These include the likelihood of reoffending, the frequency of reoffending and the magnitude of the offence that may be committed. Here, a relevant consideration is the different magnitude between accessing CEM and contact offending, with the highest risk for the offending that has relatively less magnitude. However, the frequency with which Mr Colangelo may reoffend is also a relevant consideration for Mr Colangelo, given his previous quick return to offending having been released from custody.
Dr Raeside also gave evidence about studies that have been undertaken in relation to the frequency with which CEM offenders develop into contact offenders. He said that the overall finding seems counterintuitive in that there are not many cases in which there was a progression to contact offending – the reported rate is about five to 10 per cent of cases.
Dr Raeside went on to contextualise that result. He said:[13]
Now all these things are relative, 10 per cent risk, one in 10 will move to contact offending but it suggests that there are different dynamics at work as to what causes the offending and that there may be a difference between the two groups. But in Mr Colangelo’s history, the concern is his prior sexual offending. Although non-contact, I think it moves him out of that bracket of simply being a CEM offender so, therefore that would increase his risk. And thinking about his prior offending, he’s taken action, he’s gone into the public, he’s gone where people are, particularly children, and he’s engaged in sexual acts where they may see him, or he might be hoping they’ll see him. So that’s a much significant difference, a much greater difference than someone who simply views CEM, accepting all of the harm that can cause to children.
[13] Ibid at 31-32.
Dr Crouch expressed a similar concern. She said:[14]
I think I put weight on the diversity more than just the fact of non-contact. I mean as Dr Raeside alluded to, I mean, it’s not simply someone who’s accessed CEM, he’s got a pattern of diverse sexual offending which, within itself, is a static risk factor, the more different types of sexual offending you’ve engaged in, the higher risk that you will continue to engage and have the potential to engage in different types of sexual offending.
[14] Ibid at 32.
However, a factor in favour of Mr Colangelo not falling into the category of offenders who are likely to escalate to contact offending is that he does not have an antisocial borderline personality disorder or substance abuse issues, which commonly accompany an escalation of sexual offending.
Consideration
It is the Attorney-General’s submission that Mr Colangelo should be the subject of an EDO on the basis of the expert opinions that he is unwilling to control his sexual instincts, as legislatively defined. It is contended that it is appropriate for the Court to exercise its discretion to make an EDO having regard to the purpose and object of s 57 of the Sentencing Act 2017 (SA), that being to protect the community from sexual offenders where the risk posed is such that it is inappropriate for them to be released.
Whilst Mr Colangelo has not committed a contact offence, the number and diversity of his offences, and his failure to meaningfully respond to the extensive therapy that he has undertaken, mean that absent an EDO the risk that he poses is unacceptable.
It is the Attorney-General’s submission that whilst Mr Colangelo’s chromosomal disorder, communication issues and ASD may explain the circumstances in which he now finds himself, they in no way mitigate his risk.
Counsel for Mr Colangelo contends to the contrary, that is that given there is now a greater understanding of the complex issues facing Mr Colangelo, his risk is more open to management within the community.
It was also submitted on behalf of Mr Colangelo that care must be taken about any assumption being made about the risk of his conduct escalating to contact offending. Whilst it was accepted that offences involving CEM are serious offences, they do not expose the community to the same immediate risk, as compared to other forms of sexual offending. Further, that the risk of Mr Colangelo engaging in these sorts of offences can be effectively ameliorated by the imposition of an ESO with strict conditions.
The startling point for the determination of this application is that pursuant to s 57 of the Sentencing Act2017 (SA) a relevant offence includes an offence under s 63 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA). Here, the relevant offence is disseminating CEM. It follows that it was the intention of Parliament to make those who have committed such an offence liable for the imposition of an EDO regardless of whether or not they have additionally committed a contact offence against a child.
The fact that the criminal conduct in question is captured as a relevant offence does no more, however, than enliven the power of the Attorney-General to make an application for an EDO. It says nothing about whether or not the Court should, in fact, make such an order.
The threshold question to be answered in the affirmative, before such an order can be made, is whether the offender who is the subject of the application is either incapable of controlling or unwilling to control his or her sexual instincts.
Although s 57(7) does not make it explicit that an order for extended detention is conditioned on the Court being satisfied of the threshold question, such a condition is implicit in the section. That implication arises from s 57(6), which mandates that the Court directs that at least two legally-qualified practitioners inquire into the mental condition of the offender and report to the Court on whether he or she is incapable or unwilling to control their sexual instincts.
I have received reports from two experts who have independently formed the view that Mr Colangelo is unwilling to control his sexual instincts, in that there is a significant risk that Mr Colangelo would, given an opportunity to commit a relevant offence, fail to exercise appropriate control of his sexual instincts.
I note that the test includes a reference to a ‘relevant’ offence, meaning that it is sufficient to satisfy the test if there is a risk of Mr Colangelo committing a further offence of disseminating CEM. For the purposes of finding the test satisfied, it is not necessary that I make any determination in relation to the likelihood of Mr Colangelo’s offending escalating to contact offending.
Whilst it is a matter for the Court to determine whether Mr Colangelo is unwilling to control his sexual instincts, I see no reason to depart from the views expressed by Dr Raeside and Dr Crouch; they were objective, well-reasoned and remained consistent when tested under cross-examination.
I find that Mr Colangelo is unwilling to control his sexual instincts.
That is not, however, the end of the matter. Having answered the threshold question in the affirmative, the Court must consider whether it is appropriate in all of the circumstances to make such an order or to put it in the terms used by Hinton J in R v Hoare:[15]
Having answered the threshold question, there remains vested in the Court a residual discretion - despite the Court finding that a person to whom the section applies is incapable or unwilling to control his or her sexual instincts, it might be inappropriate that an order for indeterminate detention be made.
[15] [2017] SASC 7 at [62].
An order for extended detention should only be made if it is necessary to protect the community from the risk that the offender poses. In R v Schuster,[16] in the context of considering an application for release on licence, the Full Court considered the significance of making public safety the paramount consideration said: [17]
What then is the legal significance of making public safety the paramount consideration?
Obviously enough, even after the enactment of the Act, the Court retains a discretionary power to release on licence. The Amendment Act did not make the safety of the community a condition precedent to the favourable exercise of discretion. The legislature did not require the Court to be satisfied that there is no, or no material, risk to the safety of the community before the discretion is enlivened. Nor did the legislature prescribe a ‘minimum’ acceptable risk. It could not do so in any practicable way because the risk here in issue cannot be measured with mathematical precision. The use of qualifiers like low, medium or high would have been of limited utility.
[16] (2016) 125 SASR 388.
[17] Ibid at [79].
These observations apply equally to s 57(7) of the Sentencing Act 2017 (SA). The task to be undertaken is a balancing exercise between competing considerations with the greatest weight to be placed on the need for public safety. The question that must be considered is whether there is some other mechanism falling short of ongoing incarceration that will afford the public adequate protection.
I also take into account the observations made by Kourakis CJ in Thompson v Attorney-General (SA)[18] about the imposition of EDO in circumstances in which the Court has the ability to utilise an ESO. His Honour stated:[19]
… s 57 of the Sentencing Act has radically changed the nature of an indefinite detention order. For the future when determining whether an extended supervision order should be made pursuant to the High Risk Offenders Act or an order for indefinite detention pursuant to s 57 of the Sentencing Act2017 (SA), even though the paramount consideration remains the protection of the public, the draconian transformation of the nature of an indefinite detention order will be an important consideration. If it is shown that a defendant is likely to spend all or almost all of his or her life in detention, but that close supervision under an extended supervision order will expose the public to a very small risk of serious harm, the court will necessarily be hesitant before making an indefinite detention order ...
[18] (2019) 133 SASR 302.
[19] Ibid at [73].
The critical question that I arrive at is, given the nature of the risk posed by Mr Colangelo, is there an alternative means available to protect the community falling short of indefinite detention? The nature of the risk posed by Mr Colangelo is an unusual one given the pattern of his prior offending. Whilst Mr Colangelo has engaged in exhibitionist-type offending, the last offence of this nature took place in 2012.
There was then a period of four years of no further offending.
On 31 January 2018, Mr Colangelo was convicted of two counts of possessing CEM and then the index offending was committed in 2022.
Whilst I accept the evidence of the possible risk of Mr Colangelo’s conduct escalating to contact offending, the pattern of his past offences would seem to suggest against it.
In my view, the greatest risk is that Mr Colangelo, particularly if isolated and unoccupied, will again gravitate towards CEM offences.
There are, however, factors that weigh against this. Mr Colangelo has now been in custody since October 2022. Prior to this, Mr Colangelo had only served one term of eight months imprisonment. He will now be fully aware of the consequences of continuing with offences of this nature and, in particular, the risk of spending a large portion of the remainder of his life in custody if he commits a further offence.
Mr Colangelo also has the support of his parents, with whom he can live and who can assist in monitoring his behaviour. Whilst that was also the case when he committed his most recent offences, like their son, Mr Colangelo’s parents have been confronted with the stark reality of the consequences that lay ahead if he continues to offend.

Mr Colangelo also has available to him, for the first time, the conditions and structure of an ESO. There is no reason to believe that he will be non-compliant with the conditions of such an order. He has no personality or psychiatric disorder that would cause him to be disinclined to adhere to the conditions, or to adopt an anti-authoritarian attitude. Additionally, he has no substance abuse issues.
A further consideration that would suggest that Mr Colangelo would adhere to a regime created by an ESO is the very fact that he has been prepared to undertake and follow through with four rounds of sexual offending treatment. Whilst there have been significant limitations in the impact of that therapy, it would seem that has, for the most part, been the product of the complexity of Mr Colangelo’s personal circumstances. This does not detract from the fact that he has voluntarily participated in this therapy, both in the community and in custody.
Taking all these matters into account, I am satisfied that Mr Colangelo’s risk to the community can be reduced to an acceptable level by the imposition of an ESO with appropriately strict conditions. That, of course, will sit alongside the restrictions placed on Mr Colangelo under the Child Sex Offenders Registration Act 2006 (SA).
I refuse the application for an EDO.
I grant the application that Mr Colangelo be the subject of an ESO for the period of five years.