Holland v Commissioner of Police

The applicant, Mr Holland, sought an order to suspend his reporting obligations under the Child Sex Offenders Registration Act 2006 (SA). Mr Holland, convicted in 2001 of sexual offences against a child, has been registered on the Australian National Child Offenders Register (ANCOR) and has complied with the reporting obligations imposed by the Act. The Commissioner of Police did not oppose the application. The applicant argued that he did not pose a risk to the safety and well-being of any child or children now or in the future, justifying the suspension of his reporting obligations under s 38(1) of the Act.

The court was required to determine whether Mr Holland did not pose a risk to the safety and well-being of any child or children, as required by s 38(2) of the Act, to justify the suspension of his reporting obligations. The court needed to consider the seriousness of Mr Holland's offences, the period since the offences were committed, his age at the time of the offences and now, and his total criminal record. The court also had to take into account whether Mr Holland had ever been subject to a restraining order or a declaration under the Summary Procedure Act 1921, and any other matter it considered appropriate.

The court found that Mr Holland did not pose a risk to the safety and well-being of any child or children. The court considered the seriousness of the offences, the period since the offences were committed, and Mr Holland’s age and background. The court was satisfied that Mr Holland had complied with the reporting obligations and had no further offences. The court also considered Mr Holland’s stable background, his cooperation during the proceedings, and his continued compliance with the reporting obligations. The court concluded that Mr Holland did not pose a risk to the safety and well-being of any child or children.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court made an order pursuant to s 38(1) of the Act suspending Mr Holland's reporting obligations.