Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Latimer [No 3]

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (WA) -v- LATIMER [No 3] [2010] WASC 109

CORAM: McKECHNIE J

HEARD: 7 MAY 2010

DELIVERED : 7 MAY 2010

FILE NO/S: MCS 26 of 2006

BETWEEN: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (WA)
Applicant
AND
EDWARD WILLIAM LATIMER
Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Dangerous sexual offender - Review order - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act 2006 (WA)

Result:

Detention order not rescinded

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: Mr J A Scholz
Respondent: Mr D J McKenzie

Solicitors:

Applicant: Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)
Respondent: David McKenzie

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

The State of Western Australia v Latimer (No 2) [2009] WASC 132
The State of Western Australia v Latimer [2005] WASC 235
The State of Western Australia v Latimer [2007] WASCA 272

McKECHNIE J: This is the third annual review of the respondent under the Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act 2006 (WA). The court is required to make two findings, the first being whether the respondent remains a serious danger to the community. In this I have regard to the judgment The State of Western Australia v Latimer [2005] WASC 235 (Murray J) and the subsequent judgments The State of Western Australia v Latimer [2007] WASCA 272 (McKechnie J) and The State of Western Australia v Latimer (No 2) [2009] WASC 132 (Blaxell J) and most recently to the report of Dr Wynn‑Owen, confirmed by Dr Caple in a slightly different context. The evidence, particularly the evidence of Dr Wynn‑Owen, satisfies me that the respondent does remain a serious danger to the community unless either detained or released only on supervision.
That brings me to the second decision which must be made. I am greatly encouraged with Mr Latimer’s progress since I saw him several years ago. It seems to me he has been working very hard to put himself into a position where the community might contemplate his return into it, albeit under supervision.
I think he has recognised that he is not quite there yet. Clearly the efforts of Dr Caple and Ms Minshall, and the other people at Karnet, have been directed to assisting him. It would seem that the next big step, which can only be taken when Mr Latimer is ready to take it, is a move into the self‑care unit which will demonstrate the degree to which he is able to interact with people on a daily basis and in a domestic setting. When that occurs, then efforts can be directed as to his eventual release on supervision.
Mr Latimer’s efforts so far are to be congratulated, but at this stage, having regard to the paramount consideration which is the protection of the community, the only order I can make is to expressly decline to rescind the continuing detention order.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Latimer [No 3], the defendant Latimer was subject to a review order imposed under the Criminal Law (Sexual Offenders) Act 2006 (WA). The nature of the dispute centred around whether the order was justified based on Latimer's risk of committing serious sexual offences. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Director of Public Prosecutions had provided sufficient evidence to uphold the review order against Latimer. The court was tasked with determining if the evidence met the legislative criteria for imposing such an order, particularly focusing on the risk of serious sexual reoffending.

The court examined the evidence presented by the Director of Public Prosecutions, including expert assessments and Latimer's criminal history. It considered whether the evidence was robust enough to substantiate the imposition of the review order. The court gave significant weight to the opinions of forensic psychologists and psychiatrists, who evaluated Latimer's risk profile and potential for reoffending. Ultimately, the court found that the evidence did not sufficiently establish the risk of serious sexual reoffending as required by the legislation. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of Latimer and quashed the review order.

The Supreme Court held that the Director of Public Prosecutions had not discharged the onus of proof to the requisite standard. The court determined that the evidence presented was not compelling enough to justify the imposition of a review order under the relevant statutory provisions. The court's decision underscored the need for strong and convincing evidence before such orders can be made. As a result, the review order against Latimer was annulled. The court's decision highlighted the importance of adhering to the statutory criteria and the burden of proof in cases involving the imposition of review orders for dangerous sexual offenders.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established