Dojcs v L
[2024] VCC 1955
•6 December 2024
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE COMMON LAW DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
| SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND COMMUNITY SAFETY |
| v |
| V L |
---
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE PILLAY | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 3 December 2024 | |
DATE OF RULING: | 6 December 2024 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DOJCS v V L | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2024] VCC 1955 | |
RULING
---
Subject:Application for Review of Supervision Order
Catchwords: Supervision order – curfew condition – alcohol monitoring device condition – non-publication order – reintegration into the community
Legislation Cited: Sex Offenders Registration Act2004
Ruling: Application granted in part
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Applicant | Ms S Flynn SC | Russell Kennedy |
| For the Respondent | Ms S Buckley | Chester Metcalfe & Co |
HIS HONOUR:
1There are three issues before the court arising from this application to review the conditions of the supervision order. In order, these are:
(a) Whether a curfew condition should be imposed requiring V L to reside at his Essendon home between the hours of 9.00pm and 7.00am. Currently the curfew condition is from 10.00pm to 7.00am.
(b) Whether the alcohol monitoring ankle bracelet (SCRAM) device condition ought be removed from his extant order.
(c) Whether there should be a non-publication order made suppressing his identity and his address.
2For the reasons which follow, I accept that there should be a curfew condition in place requiring him to remain at home between the hours of 9.00pm and 7.00am each day, the imposition of an alcohol monitoring condition by way of SCRAM device, and thirdly that a non-publication order should be made.
3I set out briefly below my reasons for making the orders I announced on the day of the hearing and subsequently made.
Brief chronology
4The broad facts of the matter are not in dispute and were helpfully set out in the chronology which was provided by the applicant. Most relevantly, the respondent was born in April 1969. He has committed a number of serious sexual assaults dating back to 1986. These resulted in very substantial prison terms. I otherwise accept that the chronology sets out the relevant details of his offending. Most notably, he was convicted in respect of rape offending and indecent assault in November 2002, and then again in July 2003. He received a significant custodial sentence and thereafter was subject to the Sex Offenders Registration Act2004.
5He was first made subject to an interim supervision order and then later a full supervision order in 2020. As a result he was moved from a custodial setting to Corella Place. Towards the end of 2023, he began his transition from Corella Place into the community and, specifically, to a property in Essendon. However, shortly after, about 10 days in fact, of being in the Essendon property he was found to have been in possession of methylamphetamine and cannabis. He was arrested, charged and ultimately pleaded guilty. He was moved from his residential property back to Corella Place. He moved from Corella Place back to the Essendon residence on 28 August 2024 following an application for review of his supervision order.
6After 12 days in the community, he was then found to have used cannabis, amphetamine and methamphetamine by positive urine analysis. He was arrested on 9 September 2024 and taken into custody for 43 days. He was ultimately charged, pleaded guilty, convicted, and sentenced with a fine of $250. He returned to the Essendon residence on 8 October 2024. From that date until the hearing, was a period of 57 days. In that period, there had been one alleged instance of tampering with his SCRAM device.
The curfew condition
7I consider the curfew condition constitutes the minimum interference with the liberty of V L necessary to manage the risk that he poses if in the community. It has always been the case that he has been classified as a high risk of re-offending. It is certainly true that he has engaged reasonably well with his treating teams. However, the cumulative nature of his breaching behaviour during the course of 2024 warrants some greater care be taken with his reintegration. Here, it is apparent that there are a number of factors which feed into the risk of re-offending, given they featured in his index offending.
8Dr Reeves gave evidence that these factors were broadly darkness, his movement into secluded areas, and drugs and alcohol. The curfew condition is quite clearly targeted to one of the primary risk factors, being darkness. By requiring V L to be home slightly earlier than 10.00pm constitutes, in my assessment, a prudent response in order to manage his risk.
The alcohol monitoring SCRAM device condition
9It is somewhat unclear the role that alcohol has played in his past offending. There is some conflict in the evidence about this. Dr Reeves gave evidence from various reports that she had written during her association with him in which he described the role that alcohol played in his index offending. In addition, she made the point that alcohol worked to open the gateway to other risky behaviours, such as drugs. Certainly drugs have been a feature of the index offending.
10While alcohol has not played a role in any of his offending during the course of this year and he coped well with alcohol while at Corella Place, at present, V L is in a largely new circumstance. That is, he has spent decades in custodial settings and then in only slightly less constrained circumstances at Corella Place. At present, he is attempting a reintegration into society, where he is exposed to a vast array of experiences and opportunities. The skills and education he has had while in custody must now be practised. No doubt this is a challenging time.
11It is my assessment, confirmed by Dr Reeves’ evidence, that changes in his behaviour require several months to be considered embedded. In that circumstance, I consider that the SCRAM device operates as a deterrent to engaging in behaviour which might lead to more concerning activities such as drugs or attending in darkness at secluded places.
12As Dr Reeves opined, if after six months his behaviour continues to be consistently in line with the supervision order, his behaviour might then warrant a change in the conditions imposed.
Non-publication order
13One of the aims of the supervision order regime is to assist in the rehabilitation of the offender. Dr Reeves gave uncontested evidence that a non-publication order would assist with the rehabilitation of V L. Given that evidence, I consider such an order to be appropriate.
14For the above reasons, I will make the orders broadly in line with those suggested by the applicant.
0
0
0