DPP v CS

The matter of the Director of Public Prosecutions v CS came before the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the Director sought a detention order under the Serious Offenders Act 2018 (Vic) for a period of three years. The application was predicated on the unacceptable risk posed by CS of committing serious sex offences, serious violence offences, or both. CS had a lengthy criminal history, including prior serious sex offences and a history of violent offending, though no serious violence offence had been recorded. There was a previous supervision order and an interim detention order in place at the time of the hearing.

The court was required to determine whether the criteria for making a detention order were met, focusing on whether CS posed an unacceptable risk of committing serious sex offences or serious violence offences. The court considered the meaning of "unacceptable risk" and whether the risk was not merely theoretical but substantial and imminent. The court also needed to assess the relevance of CS's extensive criminal history and whether it warranted the imposition of a detention order.

In ruling against the making of a detention order, the court held that while CS had a significant criminal history, the risk of committing serious offences was not as high as required by the statutory criteria. The court distinguished between general violent offending and serious violence offences, concluding that the risk of CS committing serious violence offences was not substantial and imminent. The decision in Nigro v Secretary to the Department of Justice was applied, where the court found that the risk must be more than theoretical and must be serious and imminent. The court found that the evidence did not meet the threshold for an unacceptable risk of serious offences, and thus declined to make a detention order.

No detention order was made. The interim detention order remained in effect until further order of the court.