Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Latimer [No 3]
[2010] WASC 109
•7 MAY 2010
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Detention order not rescinded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.
5
3
1