E v Jordan - [2009] TASSC 61

[2009] TASSC 61

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: E v Jordan [2009] TASSC 61

PARTIES: E
v

JORDAN, Steven

FILE NO/S:  425/2009
DELIVERED ON:  6 August 2009
DELIVERED AT:  Launceston
HEARING DATE:  20 July 2009
JUDGMENT OF:  Crawford J

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Sentence – Sentencing orders – Orders and declarations relating to serious or violent offenders or dangerous sexual offenders – Dangerous sexual offender – Registration, reporting and like matters – Extent of risk of committing a reportable offence in the future – Whether court obliged to make reporting order if risk is present.
Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act (Tas), s6(1).
S v Tasmania [2007] TASSC 62, referred to.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [3355]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Applicant:  P V O'Halloran
             Respondent:  J P Ransom
Solicitors:
             Applicant:  Legal Aid Commission of Tasmania
             Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2009] TASSC 61
Number of paragraphs: 35

Serial No 61/2009
File No 425/2009

E v STEVEN JORDAN

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT CRAWFORD CJ
6 August 2009

The applicant pleaded guilty to two counts of indecent assault. He was sentenced by a magistrate to imprisonment for four months and placed on the Register under the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2005 for three years.

He moved the Court to review the sentence on a sole ground of manifest excessiveness. He also moved the Court to review the order placing him on the Register on the basis of two errors of law when interpreting the Act. For the reasons I give, the motions will be dismissed.

The factual basis for the orders

The charges concerned events in 1983 and 1984 respectively. He was married to the complainant's mother and was about 37 or 38 years old. It was his second marriage. The complainant was a boy aged 14 at the time of the first offence and 15 at the time of the second offence. The first occurred when they were camping. He grabbed the boy's crotch over his clothes, removed his shorts and fondled his penis. The complainant did not want it to happen but was not strong willed enough to stop the applicant.

The second offence occurred about 12 months later in the boy's bedroom. The applicant grabbed his penis, masturbated him and then took his penis into his mouth. The boy acquiesced to it happening.

It was not until July 2007 that the complainant made a complaint to the police. The applicant was interviewed on 23 July 2008. He made full admissions. He was charged on a complaint that first came before a magistrate on 27 October 2008. In December he indicated that he would plead guilty and he did so on 24 February 2009.

The complainant says that he is still affected by the crimes. He had counselling in his early 20s and still seeks it when matters get on top of him. He last attended a counsellor in 2007. He has had three marriages that have broken down. He does not assert that the crimes were a direct…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading E v Jordan

Details

AGLC: E v Jordan [2009] TASSC 61
Case: [2009] TASSC 61
Decision Date: 6 August 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of E v Jordan involved a defendant who was found guilty of multiple offences, including serious sexual offences. The defendant had a history of similar offences, which led to the court considering whether he should be classified as a dangerous sexual offender. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary focus of the court was to determine the appropriate sentencing orders, particularly whether a reporting order should be imposed given the defendant’s risk profile.

The legal issues before the court included the assessment of the defendant’s risk of reoffending and the applicability of the reporting order under the relevant legislation. The court had to evaluate the evidence presented regarding the defendant’s likelihood of committing a reportable offence in the future. Additionally, the court needed to decide whether it was obliged to impose a reporting order if there was any present risk, regardless of its magnitude.

The court carefully considered the evidence and the statutory framework governing dangerous sexual offender reporting orders. It determined that the presence of any risk of reoffending warranted a reporting order. The court held that the obligation to impose such an order was not contingent on the precise level of risk but rather on the existence of any risk. Consequently, the court made a reporting order, emphasising the importance of monitoring and managing the risk posed by the defendant to the community.

The final orders included a reporting order mandating the defendant to comply with specified conditions aimed at mitigating the risk of reoffending. The court also imposed a supervision order to ensure the defendant’s adherence to the reporting requirements. This decision underscored the court’s duty to protect the community by implementing measures that address the risk posed by dangerous sexual offenders.

Orders