EE v Attorney-General (NT)

In the matter of EE v Attorney-General (NT), the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory was tasked with reviewing the decision of a lower court to revoke a continuing supervision order and impose a final continuing detention order on the appellant, a convicted sex offender, under the Serious Sex Offenders Act (NT). The appellant, who had previously been deemed a "serious danger to the community," had contravened the conditions of his supervision order by consuming alcohol and cannabis, and accessing pornographic material through a mobile phone. The lower court found that the appellant remained a serious danger to the community and that the conditions of supervision designed to manage the risk had not been successful due to the appellant's deliberate conduct in undermining those measures. The protection of the community could no longer be met by the supervision order, leading to the decision to revoke the supervision order and impose a final continuing detention order.

The legal issues the court needed to decide included whether the lower court had applied the correct test under the relevant provisions of the Serious Sex Offenders Act, whether the lower court had properly considered the secondary consideration of rehabilitation and treatment, and whether the lower court had erred in finding that the appellant's risk was elevated. The appellant argued that the lower court had failed to apply the proper test under section 14(3) of the SSO Act, but the court found that this contention was without foundation, as the lower court had correctly addressed the issue in terms of the relevant statutory provisions. The court also found that the lower court had properly considered the secondary consideration of rehabilitation and treatment, and had given extensive treatment to the appellant's progress under the supervision order. Finally, the court found that the lower court had not erred in finding that the risk posed by the appellant was elevated, as the conditions of supervision had been demonstrably unsuccessful in achieving the statutory purposes.

In light of the above, the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory dismissed the appeal, finding that the lower court's decision to revoke the supervision order and impose a final continuing detention order was correct. The appellant had not led any evidence or pointed to any regime that could be put in place to deal with the identified concerns, and had failed to discharge the onus of satisfying the Court that it would not be appropriate to revoke the supervision order and make a final continuing detention order. The paramount consideration for the Court was the need to protect victims or potential victims, their families and members of the community generally, and the lower court had correctly given paramountcy to that consideration. The court acknowledged the significant impact that the final continuing detention order would have on the appellant, but found that the protection of the community was paramount and that the risk posed by the appellant could no longer be reasonably managed under an order for supervision in the community.