H, DB v Commissioner of Police

In the case of H, DB v Commissioner of Police, the applicant sought to have his obligations under the Dangerous Sexual Offenders (Registration) Act 2009 (SA) suspended. The applicant had previously been convicted of sexual offences involving his daughter and was required to register as a sexual offender and comply with various reporting obligations. The applicant contended that he had been rehabilitated and posed a low risk of reoffending, warranting a suspension of his reporting obligations. The court had to determine whether the applicant met the threshold requirements for making such an application and, if so, whether the applicant posed a low risk of reoffending, thereby warranting a suspension of his reporting obligations.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the applicant had satisfied the threshold requirements to apply for a suspension of his reporting obligations under s37 of the Act, and whether he posed a low risk of reoffending, warranting such a suspension under s38(2). The applicant argued that he had satisfied the threshold requirements and that he posed a low risk of reoffending. The Commissioner of Police opposed the application, contending that the applicant did not pose a low risk of reoffending. The court had to assess the evidence and determine whether the applicant had met the statutory criteria.

The court considered the evidence and the report of the forensic psychologist, Mr Broomhall, who concluded that the applicant posed a low risk of reoffending. The court found that the applicant had satisfied the threshold requirements under s37 of the Act, as a period of 15 years had passed since his last sentencing for a registrable offence, and he was not subject to a lifelong reporting period in a foreign jurisdiction before becoming subject to such a period in South Australia. The court further found that the applicant posed a low risk of reoffending, based on the evidence and the psychologist’s report, which indicated appropriate victim empathy, genuine remorse, and no indications of sexual deviance or hyper-sexualised behaviour. The court concluded that the applicant was entitled to apply to the Supreme Court for an order suspending his reporting obligations under the Act.

The court ordered that the applicant was entitled to apply to the Supreme Court for an order suspending his reporting obligations, otherwise applicable under the Act.