Re MTE (No 4) - [2021] VSC 622

THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2019 0273

IN THE MATTER of the Serious Offenders Act 2018 (‘the Act’)

and

IN THE MATTER of an application under s 110 of the Act for a review of conditions of a Supervision Order

BETWEEN

MTE

Applicant

and

THE SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND COMMUNITY SAFETY

Respondent

---

JUDGE:	Jane Dixon J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	14 September 2021
DATE OF RULING:	17 September 2021
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re MTE (No 4)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSC 622

---

PUBLIC LAW – Serious offender supervision order – Application for leave to review condition of supervision order – Applicant sought removal of electronic monitoring condition – Application unopposed after applicant’s submissions – Proposed orders by consent – Leave to review granted – Application granted – Condition varied – Serious Offenders Act 2018, ss 1, 15, 27, 110, 111.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr R De Vietri	Victoria Legal Aid
For the Respondent	Ms S Flynn QC	Russell Kennedy Lawyers

HER HONOUR:

Introduction

MTE[1] was released from prison on 27 January 2020, after serving a sentence of 23 years for murder. On 24 January 2020, MTE was placed on an interim supervision order by Champion J of this Court. He was then placed on a final supervision order (‘the Order’) on 21 May 2020, also by Champion J, for a period of four years, with a periodic review to occur in two years from that time.[2]
[1]A pseudonym has been used for the applicant, in accordance with the decision of Champion J in Re MTE (No 3) [2020] VSC 646.
[2]The Order requires the Secretary of the Department of Justice and Community Safety to file an Application for Review no later than 20 May 2022.

In June 2021, MTE applied to this Court for a review of a condition of the Order, pursuant to s 110 of the Act. If leave is granted, MTE seeks that the electronic location monitoring condition, being condition 7.8 on the Order (‘the contested condition’) be removed, insofar as it requires the applicant’s location to be monitored by a GPS ankle bracelet. Initially, the Secretary opposed the application. Both parties filed written materials in support of their respective positions, which I read carefully before the hearing.[3] The applicant’s materials included a helpful chronology of events.
[3]For the applicant: Outline of Submissions dated 8 September 2021, Report of Dr Pandurangi, dated 25 July 2021, Report of Dr Thompson, dated 25 June 2021. For the respondent: Outline of Submissions dated 9 September 2021 attaching: Assessment Report of Dr Godfredson dated 27 October 2019, Addendum Report of Dr Godfredson dated 10 May 2020, and Special Report of the Department of Justice and Community Safety dated 2 September 2021.

I heard MTE’s application on 14 September 2021. MTE’s counsel, Mr de Vietri, made comprehensive submissions in support of MTE’s application. Mr de Vietri also tendered some…

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 MTE (No 4)

Details

AGLC: Re MTE (No 4) [2021] VSC 622
Case: [2021] VSC 622
Decision Date: 17 September 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re MTE (No 4) involved an application for leave to review a condition of a supervision order under the Serious Offenders Act 2018. The applicant, MTE, sought the removal of an electronic monitoring condition imposed as part of their supervision order. This matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The application was unopposed after the applicant provided submissions to the court.

The primary legal issue the court needed to address was whether the electronic monitoring condition imposed on the applicant as part of their supervision order was appropriate and necessary. The court considered the legislative framework provided by the Serious Offenders Act 2018, particularly sections 1, 15, 27, 110, and 111, which outline the powers and procedures for imposing and reviewing supervision orders for serious offenders.

The court found that the applicant's submissions adequately demonstrated that the electronic monitoring condition was no longer necessary. Given the unopposed nature of the application and the applicant's representations, the court granted leave to review and subsequently granted the application. The court varied the supervision order by removing the electronic monitoring condition. This decision was made in light of the applicant's compliance with other conditions and their demonstrated ability to manage their obligations without electronic monitoring.

Orders