Re CS (No 3) - [2024] VSC 594

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2021 0003

IN THE MATTER of the Serious Offenders Act 2018 (Vic)

-and-

IN THE MATTER of an application under s 46 of the Act for an Interim Supervision Order

-and-

IN THE MATTER of an application under s 22(1) of the Act for renewal of a Supervision Order

BETWEEN:

THE SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND COMMUNITY SAFETY	Applicant
and
CS	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	INCERTI J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	18 September 2024
DATE OF RULING:	25 September 2024
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re CS (No 3)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VSC 594

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Supervision Order – Unopposed application for Interim Supervision Order – Non-publication order sought by respondent and opposed by the applicant – Suitability of Corella Place on ongoing basis – Serious Offenders Act 2018 (Vic) ss 22, 47, 279.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr P Holdenson KC	Russell Kennedy
For the Respondent	Mr G Cooper	Victoria Legal Aid

HER HONOUR:

On 22 July 2024, the Secretary to the Department of Justice and Community Safety (‘the applicant’) filed an application for an Interim Supervision Order (‘ISO’) under s 47 of the Serious Offenders Act 2018 (Vic) (‘the Act’) in respect of the respondent, CS.[1] On 18 September, I made orders imposing an Interim Supervision Order (‘SO’) for a period of four months.[2] I also made a non-publication order pursuant to s 279 of the Act. These are my reasons.
[1]A pseudonym.
[2]The Interim Supervision Order is due to commence on 25 October 2024 and expire on 24 February 2025.

CS is subject to a SO dated 26 October 2021 which was reviewed and confirmed on 4 March 2024. The SO will expire on 25 October 2024. CS is also the subject of an application under s 22 of the Act for renewal of the SO for a period of three years. That application has been commenced but not yet determined.

The Court was informed that there are outstanding materials in relation to the renewal application and, as such, the application cannot be heard and determined before the expiry date of the current SO. The current application for an ISO therefore arises out of necessity.

Pursuant to s 47(1) of the Act, the Court may only make an ISO in respect of an eligible offender if:

(a) the court is satisfied that --
(i)an application under section 13 or 22 in respect of the offender has been commenced but not determined; and
(ii)either –
(A)the offender is no longer, or will not be, remanded in custody or serving a custodial sentence when the application under section 13 is determined; or
(B)the previous supervision order has expired or will have expired before the application under section 22 is determined; and

(b)it appears to the court that the documents in support of the application under section 13 or 22 would, if proved, justify the making or…

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 Re CS (No 3)

Details

AGLC: Re CS (No 3) [2024] VSC 594
Case: [2024] VSC 594
Decision Date: 25 September 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Re CS, the court was presented with an unopposed application for an Interim Supervision Order under the Serious Offenders Act 2018 (Vic). The application was brought by CS, who was seeking the order due to their history of serious criminal behaviour. The respondent, a representative of the state, did not oppose the application but did seek a non-publication order to prevent the disclosure of CS’s identity. CS opposed this non-publication order, leading to a dispute regarding the terms of the Supervision Order.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the non-publication order should be granted, despite the applicant’s opposition. The court was also required to determine the suitability of Corella Place as a placement for CS on an ongoing basis, in light of the statutory provisions under the Serious Offenders Act 2018 (Vic). This included assessing the conditions of the facility in relation to the needs and risks associated with CS’s criminal history.

The court, after considering the statutory framework and the arguments presented by both parties, decided to grant the non-publication order. This decision was made to protect the identity of CS, considering the potential risks associated with disclosure. The court found Corella Place to be suitable for CS’s ongoing placement, based on the facility’s ability to provide the necessary security and rehabilitation services in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The decision was grounded in the need to balance the rights of CS with public safety concerns.

The court’s final orders included the grant of an Interim Supervision Order for CS, with conditions that included a non-publication order to protect CS’s identity and the placement of CS at Corella Place. The court also outlined specific terms and conditions for the Supervision Order, reflecting the balance between the rights of the individual and the requirements for public safety and rehabilitation.

Orders