Safety v XFN (a pseudonym)
[2025] VCC 1464
•9 October 2025
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE COMMON LAW DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
APPEALS AND POST SENTENCE APPLICATION LIST
| THE SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND COMMUNITY SAFETY | Applicant |
| v | |
| XFN (A PSEUDONYM) | Respondent |
---
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE OVER | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 17 September 2025 | |
DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 9 October 2025 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Secretary to the Department of Justice and Community Safety v XFN (a pseudonym) | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2025] VCC 1464 | |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
---
Subject:SUPERVISION ORDER
Catchwords: Application for renewal of supervision order – Application for renewal opposed in terms of proposed duration and certain discretionary conditions – Supervision order renewed – Determination that unacceptable risk of committing serious sex offence but not a serious violence offence - Determination of duration and period for review - Determination of discretionary conditions relating to residency, curfew, electronic alcohol monitoring, consumption of alcohol, attending at liquor shops, drug usage and undergoing medical treatment- Contest about whether to make a non-publication order –Non-publication order made
Legislation Cited: Serious Offenders Act 2018; Serious Sex Offenders (Detention and Supervision) Act 2009
Cases Cited:Nigro v The Secretary to the Department of Justice (2013) 41 VR 359; Secretary to the Department of Justice and Community Safety v SJW(No 2) [2023] VSC 506; Secretary to the Department of Justice and Community Safety v SJW (No 3) [2025] VSC 441; Re MTE (No 2) [2020] VSC 356; ARM v Secretary, Department of Justice (2008) 29 VR 472
Judgment: Supervision order renewed, and non-publication order made
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the applicant | Ms A Roodenburg | Russell Kennedy |
| For the respondent | Ms Y Mik | Chester Metcalfe |
HIS HONOUR:
Introduction
1The Secretary to the Department of Justice and Community Safety (“the Secretary”) applies to renew a supervision order in respect of the respondent pursuant to s22(1) of the Serious Offenders Act 2018 (“the Act”).[1] The application was initially on the ground that the respondent is an unacceptable risk of committing a serious sexual offence, but with leave the Secretary expanded the grounds to claim that the respondent is, also, an unacceptable risk of committing a serious violence offence.
[1]A reference to the Serious Offenders Act 2018 is to version 14 of that Act, which commenced on 11 September 2025.
2The Secretary put forward a proposed supervision order.[2]
[2]The Secretary filed a proposed order with the application. By the time of hearing, the proposed order had been altered to reflect discussions between the parties. A reference to the proposed order is to the updated version of the Secretary’s proposed order as at the date of hearing.
3The respondent did not oppose the renewal of the supervision order provided that it was only for 12 months (as opposed to the four years sought by the Secretary), with a review date shortly before the expiry date, and the proposed conditions were altered as follows:
(a) his girlfriend, Ms Smith (a pseudonym), be allowed to stay at his residence overnight and he be allowed stay overnight at Ms Smith’s residence;
(b) the period of curfew be altered; and
(c) there be no requirement of electronic alcohol monitoring.
4Given the supervisory role of the Court in making supervision orders, further issues arose at the hearing about conditions of the proposed supervision order, including:
(a) whether there should be a prohibition on consuming alcohol;
(b) whether there should be a prohibition on attending liquor shops;
(c) the extent of the prohibition on drug use; and
(d) whether an order should be made requiring the respondent to undergo medical treatment.
5The respondent applied under s279 of the Act for a non-publication order in respect of his identity and his location. The Secretary opposed the making of a non-publication order in respect of the respondent’s identity, and neither consented to nor opposed an order regarding his location.
6The issues in the proceeding are thus:
(a) whether the supervision order should be renewed;
(b) if the supervision order is renewed:
(i)the duration of the order and when a review should take place;
(ii)what conditions the order should contain, especially regarding the matters in paragraphs 3 and 4;
(c) if the supervision order is renewed, whether there should be a non-publication order.
7I have renewed the supervision order and made a non-publication order for the reasons set out below. Annexed to this decision is a form of the order but with identifying information removed consistent with the non-publication order (“annexed supervision order”).
Summary of the respondent’s offending
8In October 2004, the respondent pleaded guilty and was convicted of one count of rape and sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of ten years. He had followed the victim, a female he did not know, after she left a nightclub early one morning in late-2002. He made sexual advances to the victim, which she rejected. He forced himself on the victim and he penetrated her vagina with his penis. During the rape, he grabbed and held the victim by the throat and pushed and banged her head onto the ground. At the time of committing this offence, he was 33-years-old and on a wholly suspended two-year sentence from an earlier conviction on 29 January 2002.
9In November 2004, the respondent was found guilty by a jury of one charge of aggravated burglary and two charges of armed robbery.
10The circumstances of this offending were that early on a morning in July 2003, the respondent entered a unit occupied by the two female victims under the guise of being a police officer. This unit was close to his residence. He disguised himself with a cap, a cloth covering his face, and latex gloves. He was armed with a knife. He used duct tape to bind the victims’ hands behind their backs and to cover their mouths. He separated the victims, taping the ankles of one victim, and leaving her on the bed in a bedroom, and taping the ankles of the other victim in the bathroom. He carried a knife throughout. At the time of the offending, the victims were 26 and 28 years of age, and the respondent was aged 34 years.
11In February 2005, he was sentenced to seven years imprisonment, with 15 months to be served cumulatively upon the sentence imposed in October 2004. The Judge imposed a new global non-parole period of 11 years and three months’ (with 338 days declared served by way of pre-sentence detention).
12In July 2005, the respondent sought leave to appeal against his sentence imposed in October 2004 for his rape conviction, claiming insufficient weight had been given to his plea of guilty and that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The Director of Public Prosecutions (“the DPP”) also appealed against the sentence imposed in February 2005 for the conviction for aggravated burglary and two charges of armed robbery on the basis that the sentence was manifestly inadequate.
13In August 2005, the Court of Appeal dismissed the respondent’s application and upheld the DPP’s appeal. The Court of Appeal re-sentenced him to 17 years’ imprisonment (in relation to the sentence imposed in February 2005) to be served concurrently with the sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment (in relation to the sentence imposed in October 2004). The respondent was sentenced to a new non-parole period of 14 years’ imprisonment commencing on 14 October 2004 (with 770 days declared served by way of pre-sentence detention).
14The Secretary’s written submissions referred to the above offending as the index offending. The material filed in support of the application recorded that the respondent had a further history of offending.[3] I will describe that conduct with less detail and only by reference to some of the past offending:
(a) in 1994, the respondent was convicted of rape and attempted theft of a motor vehicle, for having penile penetrated a female he had just met in the early hours of the morning despite her refusal. He was sentenced for seven years imprisonment with a non-parole period of five years. He sought to appeal his conviction and sentence, but was he was unsuccessful;
(b) in 1991 he was convicted of wilful and obscene exposure in a public place;
(c) in 1989 he was convicted of indecent assault;
(d) in 1987 he was charged with sexual offences including rape. Although it is not clear what charges he was convicted of, he was subjected to a three-year Youth Training order; and
(e) there are convictions in the 1980s and 90s for stealing cars, theft, handling stolen goods, use of cannabis, and driving offences.
[3] Victorian Police Court Outcomes Report dated 16 June 2025
The supervision order sought to be renewed
15The County Court of Victoria made a supervision order on 12 October 2020. It commenced on the same day, and it expires on 11 October 2025. The previous supervision order replaced an interim supervision order that had commenced upon the respondent’s release from prison.
16The supervision order was reviewed in November 2022. It was continued with minor variation. A non-publication order was made in respect of his identity and location.
17In September 2023, the respondent sought a review of the supervision order. The Post Sentence Authority (“the PSA”) had not approved him residing at a northern suburbs apartment, even though the Post Sentence Branch (“the PSB”) had considered it suitable for him to reside at after having done an environmental scan. There was a four-day hearing in this Court, with the Court ruling that he could reside at the apartment with a staged transition.
18By January 2024, the respondent had fully transitioned to the apartment. Ten days later, a search found methylamphetamine, cannabis, and items for using them. He was arrested and charged with possessing methylamphetamine and cannabis, using methamphetamine and cannabis, and four counts of contravening his supervision order. He was remanded.
19In early February 2024, he pleaded guilty to possessing cannabis and methamphetamine. He was convicted and fined $800. On the same day, the PSA issued a direction requiring him to reside at a residential facility.
20On 8 February 2024, this Court convicted him of contravening a condition of his supervision order. He was released from custody to the residential facility.
21On 5 April 2024, the respondent sought a review of the conditions of the supervision order. There was a three-day hearing across May and August 2024 that led to the conditions of the supervision order being varied so he could reside at the northern suburbs apartment and prohibiting him from employment or work, whether paid or voluntary, that required him to enter peoples’ homes.
22In early September 2024, the respondent was directed for urinalysis. Cannabis, amphetamine and methylamphetamine were detected. He was arrested and taken into custody. He pleaded guilty to possessing cannabis, and he was fined $250. For this conduct, he was convicted of two breaches of the supervision order. He was sentenced to 43 days in prison that was declared served by his time spent in detention. He returned to the northern suburbs apartment.
23In early December 2024, there was a review of the supervision order that led to this Court ordering continuation of the order.
24In early January 2025, the respondent did not comply with two directions to attend to provide a sample for urinalysis. When he did provide a sample, cannabinoids, amphetamine and methylamphetamine were detected. This led to him being arrested for using drugs of dependence (methylamphetamine and cannabis) and breaching his supervision order. In mid-February, he was convicted of breaching his supervision order and was sentenced to two months imprisonment.
25In mid-April 2025, the respondent was arrested for an alleged tamper of his alcohol monitory device. He was remanded for a month. He was charged with breaching his supervision order, but that charge was later withdrawn.
26In summary, the respondent has been under a supervision order since September 2020:
(a) the respondent has been convicted three times of breaching his supervision order with the breaches relating to his possession and use of drugs;
(b) he has resided mainly at a residential facility;
(c) he has had four brief periods of custody; and
(d) he has resided for five periods at the northern suburb apartment: 15 to 29 January 2024; 28 August to 9 September 2024; 8 October 2024 to 16 January 2025; 16 March 2025 to 17 April 2025; 13 May 2025 to date. Notably he has spent more time residing in the community this year than at any stage since the commencement of the supervision order.
27In about January 2025, the respondent began a relationship with Ms Smith. Ms Smith sat in the hearing of this application with the respondent and listened to the evidence given and the submissions put. She did not give evidence at the hearing.
The evidence
28The Secretary relies upon an assessment report by Dr Sophie Reeves, a forensic psychologist, and her oral evidence at hearing. She interviewed the respondent on 19 May 2025 and provided a report dated 2 June 2025. She had extensive additional material, which she sets out in her report. She had previously assessed the respondent and provided reports.
29Dr Reeves sets out in her report salient matters including her understanding of the respondent’s offending history, her review of the additional material, and her examination. She employed two tools to assist in her assessment of the respondent’s risk of further offending, the Static-99R and the Risk for Sexual Violence Protocol second edition (“RSVP-V2”).
30Dr Reeves assessed the respondent as having a moderate to high risk of committing a further sex offence, noting that this was a reduction in risk compared to her previous assessment in 2024, which was high.[4]
[4]Dr Reeves’ report dated 2 June 2025 (“the Reeves’ report”), [100]
31She opined about what would likely happen if the respondent did sexually offend:
“If further sexual offending is to occur, based upon [the respondent’s] pattern of sexual offending to date, it seems most likely that it would take the form of either an opportunistically driven indecent assault or penetrative sexual offence towards an adult female unknown to him, with [the respondent] using physical coercion to obtain victim compliance.”[5]
[5]Dr Reeves’ report, [102]
32She assessed the respondent’s risk of engaging in violence in two contexts. First, if he sexually offended, she opined that he is at moderate to high risk of using physical force to obtain compliance and gave as examples of this conduct as threats of harm, physical assault such as banging a victim’s head on the ground and possible use of a weapon.[6] Second, other than in the course of sexually offending, she opined he is at moderate risk of engaging in violence, which would likely take the form of verbal abuse, intimidation and threats to harm.[7]
[6]Dr Reeves’ report, [108]
[7]Dr Reeves’ report, [108] and [128]
33She identified factors that could increase the respondent’s risk as including difficulties meeting his sexual needs in healthy ways, urges to sexually offend, engaging in problematic sexual fantasising, stressors occurring within intimate relationships including a break-up of the relationship, feelings of one or both of rejection and anger, and placing himself in high risk situations such as being out at night when drug or alcohol affected, angry, without purpose or carrying a weapon.
34She identified factors that could decrease the respondent’s risk of committing further sexual violence as including a combination of engagement in a healthy, intimate relationship, further development of adaptive coping and communication skills, and seeking support at times of stress and increased self-awareness of factors that could increase his risks, and avoidance of heavy drug and alcohol use.
35At the hearing, Dr Reeves gave evidence. The respondent had not filed a notice of intention to dispute the whole or any part of her report dated 2 June 2025.[8] Dr Reeves’ testimony mainly focused on her opinion on whether publishing the respondent’s identity or his location could affect his risk of reoffending, clarifying aspects of her report, and asking her to update of her opinion considering information available since her report.
[8] The Act, s271
36The Secretary called Ms Cheyene Newman, who is an assistant manager of the PSB. Her role in the branch is to oversee court applications. She said that her main task is giving evidence in court and reviewing documents so that she can give evidence. She has no personal involvement with the respondent. The respondent did not object to any part of her evidence. Her evidence related to documents produced by the PSB and the PSA and described in general terms what steps can be taken by the PSB and the PSA.
37At the hearing the Secretary tendered Dr Reeves’ report, a post sentence environmental scan dated 4 July 2025, and record of the PSA’s decision dated 5 August 2025. The respondent did not tender any documents.
Should the supervision order be renewed?
38In hearing an application to renew a supervision order, a court has power to renew or revoke the order or make no order.[9] A court can only renew a supervision order if satisfied that a respondent “poses …an unacceptable risk of committing a serious sex offence or a serious violence offence or both if a supervision order is not made and [he or she] is in the community”.[10] An applicant has the burden of proving that a respondent poses or will poses an unacceptable risk.[11] In determining whether there is a such risk, a court must have regard to specified matters and must not have any regard to the means of managing the risk or the likely impact of a supervision order on the respondent.[12] Further, a court must be satisfied by acceptable, cogent evidence to a high degree of probability that the respondent poses or will pose an unacceptable risk.[13]
[9] The Act, s24(1)
[10] Ibid, s14(1)
[11] Ibid, s14(5)
[12] Ibid, s14(2)(a)
[13] Ibid, s14(3)
39The term “unacceptable risk” is not defined in the Act. The Court of Appeal in Nigro v The Secretary to the Department of Justice[14] considered the use of the term “unacceptable risk” in the context of the making of supervision orders under the Serious Sex Offenders (Detention and Supervision) Act 2009, the predecessor of the Act, and held that that it requires an assessment of the risk and consideration of the nature and gravity of the offence and the harm that may result if the risk manifested.[15] The Court of Appeal’s interpretation has been applied to the use of the term “unacceptable risk” in the Act.[16]
[14](2013) 41 VR 359
[15] Ibid, [6] and [117]
[16]See, for example, Secretary to the Department of Justice and Community Safety v SJW(No 2) [2023] VSC 506, [29] and [30]; Secretary to the Department of Justice and Community Safety v SJW (No 3) [2025] VSC 441, [15].
40In determining whether to renew the supervision order, I have had regard to Dr Reeves’ report and her testimony, Ms Newman’s testimony and the tendered documents.
41I consider that Dr Reeves’ opinion is acceptable, cogent evidence of a high degree of probability that the respondent poses an unacceptable risk of committing a serious sexual offence. She was an impressive witness. She balanced concern about the risk posed by the respondent with the need to seek to rehabilitate him. I accept her evidence generally, save in respect of whether the respondent is at risk of committing a serious violence offence (as discussed below).
42I accept that the respondent poses a moderate to high risk of committing a serious sexual offence by raping or indecently assaulting a woman unknown to him and violently assaulting such a woman, possibly while using a weapon, with the intent of committing a sexual offence or committing a sexual offence. Each of these acts, if committed, would be a serious sexual offence.[17] If this risk manifested it would likely cause significant trauma and harm to any victim. I am satisfied that there is an unacceptable risk that the respondent will commit a serious sexual offence.
[17] The Act, Sch 1, cll 1, 2, 3
43I accept Dr Reeves’ evidence that the respondent poses a moderate to high risk of using physical force to obtain compliance if he sexually offends (e.g. threats of harm, physical assault such as banging a victim’s head on the ground, and possible use of a weapon). She characterised this risk as a risk of committing a serious violence offence within the meaning of that term in the Act.[18] However, I do not accept her characterisation. In oral evidence, she clarified that her grading of the risk as medium to high was because of the possible use of a weapon and the difficultly in predicting the grade of harm that could be caused.[19] For a risk of violence to be a risk of a serious violence offence, the conduct that may occur if the risk manifested would need to meet the definition of a serious violence offence. Threats of harm and use of a weapon, without more, do not meet the definition of a serious violence offence in the Act. An assault with the intent to commit a sexual offence is a serious sex offence,[20] but an assault will not be a serious violence offence unless done with the intent to cause serious injury. The respondent has used violence in past offending, but he has not been charged with assault with intent to cause serious injury (or a similar offence) and the description of the violence he has used does not seem to accord with assault with intent to cause serious injury (or a similar offence).
[18]Dr Reeves’ report, [128]
[19]Transcript of hearing on 17 September 2025, page (“T”) 16, lines (“L”) 9-13
[20]The Act, Sch 2, cl 3
44Any prediction of risk will have a degree of uncertainty. Under the Act a risk of committing a serious violence offence that is less than more likely can still be an unacceptable risk.[21] I accept that if he did use violence in committing a sexual offence that it would cause harm and trauma to any victim, and it would likely be significant regardless of the actual level of violence.
[21]Ibid, 14(4)
45However, by reason on his past examples of violence in sexually offending, I do not consider there is cogent evidence that the respondent risk of engaging in violence in the course of sexual offending means he is an unacceptable risk of committing a serious violence offence.
46I accept Dr Reeves’ evidence that the respondent is at risk of engaging in verbal abuse, intimidation and threats to harm another in a context other than committing a sexual offence. This conduct, if it occurred, would not meet the definition of a serious violence offence in the Act.[22]
[22]The Act, Sch 2
47Looking at the overall risk of the respondent committing violence in any context, I am not satisfied that there is an unacceptable risk that the respondent will commit a serious violence offence.
48I am satisfied that the supervision order should be renewed on the ground that there is an unacceptable risk that the respondent will commit a serious sexual offence.
What should be the duration of the supervision order and when should it be reviewed?
49A court in making a supervision order is required to specify the period of the order (being 15 years or less),[23] the latest date by which an application for the first review of the order is to be made (being three years or less),[24] and intervals for subsequent reviews (being three years or less).[25]
[23] Ibid, ss 16(2)(d), 19(1)
[24]Ibid, ss16(2)(g), 99(1)(a)
[25] Ibid, ss 16(2)(g), 99(1)(b)
50The duration of a supervision order should reflect the period for which a court is satisfied to a high degree of probability that the person subject of the order will pose an unacceptable risk.[26]
[26]Re MTE (No 2) [2020] VSC 356, [120]; ARM v The Secretary to the Department of Justice (2008) 29 VR 472, [13]
51Relevant to fixing the duration of the order is the capacity for it to be reviewed. The purpose of reviewing a supervision order is to determine whether the supervision order should remain in operation or be revoked, including whether it should be replaced with a different supervision or detention order.[27] The implication from the review process is that a supervision order can be made for a specified duration even if though the assessment of risk may or could change during the duration of the supervision order. Before a review, the Secretary must commission a progress report. The court hearing the application must have regard to, amongst other things, the progress report.[28]
[27] The Act, s104(a) and (b)
[28] Ibid, s105
52It follows that a review should take place after sufficient time has passed to enable a chance for material change in the level of potential risk and an assessment of risk to be undertaken. The would be little or no utility in having a review before sufficient time has passed.
53The Secretary submitted that the supervision order should be for four years with a review in two years. The respondent submitted it should be for 12 months with a review to take place shortly before expiry.
54Dr Reeves’ report did not directly address the appropriate duration of the order or when it should be reviewed. She opined in her report that if the respondent demonstrates at least six months of stability, his risk of committing a serious sexual offence could reduce to moderate, which would be a reduction from her current assessment of moderate to high.[29] In her report and her evidence, she explained that stability would be shown by the natural progression of his relationship and him not engaging in inappropriate behaviour or putting himself in risky places, such as being in public or secluded places at night.[30] In her evidence, she opined that given the respondent had been restricted for over two decades, there was a need for a gradual decrease of restrictions and for review of how he goes over 12 months from that date of the hearing. She expected that he would need to demonstrate an ability to self-manage as restrictions were reduced. She said that she would need to assess the respondent in 12 months. The fact that there would need to be 12 months is explicable by the fact that the RSVP-V2, a tool used to assess risk, would require 12 months to elapse before material change could factor into the result of the tool.[31] At the hearing, Dr Reeves clarified that the assessment should take place at least 12 months from the hearing.[32] This would mean an examination, at the earliest, in September 2026.
[29]Dr Reeves’ report, [100]
[30]Ibid, [100]; T21, L10 - 29
[31]T43, L3 - 8
[32]T42, L27 – T423, L11
55A further relevant issue is the time between when Dr Reeves performs an examination, and when she provides a report. It took her about two weeks to prepare her current report.
56On the issue of the time taken to obtain a progress report, Ms Newman described the normal process of four to six months, allowing for the collection of documents for the purpose of commissioning an expert to prepare a progress report, the examination to take place with the possible need for a second examination, the expert to write the report, the report to be sent to a review board, recommendations to be made to the Secretary and presumably the application for review to be filed.
57I note that in this case Dr Reeves examined the respondent on 19 May 2025, prepared her report on 2 June 2025 and the Secretary filed the application to renew on 21 August 2025. It was a period of about three months from examination to filing of the application, and then about a month before the hearing. This is largely consistent with Ms Newman’s description of the usual practice, noting that there was no evidence about how long it took to collate the material for Dr Reeves to prepare her report.
58In my opinion, the supervision order should be for three years, with a review to take place by 28 February 2027, which is about 17 months after the hearing.
59In terms of duration, the period over which the respondent will remain an unacceptable risk of committing a serious sexual offence is not capable of precise measurement. Over the next 12 months or so the respondent’s risk of committing a serious sexual offence may reduce to moderate, but even if it did, a moderate level of risk of a serious sexual offence would still, most likely, be unacceptable. I accept Dr Reeves’ evidence that the respondent’s risk is likely to be best managed with a gradual reduction in restrictions.[33] This means he is likely to need to be under a supervision order for much longer than 12 months, albeit potentially with less restrictive conditions.
[33]Dr Reeves’ report; T25, L10 - 12
60I have chosen three years as I consider it will take at least that amount of time for his level of risk to potentially change to the extent that he may not be an unacceptable risk. Whether that in fact is the case will depend largely on what progress the respondent makes on issues like compliance with the order, undergoing treatment for issues like drug and alcohol use, and developing positive coping strategies. There is a path for the respondent, which he may or may not take, that could see his risk of reoffending decrease meaningfully over the next three years.
61I considered a review earlier than 17 months, but I do not consider that an earlier review is likely to have utility given the time needed for material change in risk, for an assessment to take place, the preparation of the report, the making of an application for review and the hearing and determination of the review.
62I considered whether to specify in the order intervals for further review but decided not to. After the first review the supervision order will have about 19 months to run. There is little utility in a further review before its expiry.
What conditions should the supervision order contain?
63A supervision order must contain the core conditions set out in s31 of the Act. The conditions in clause 5.1 to 5.15 of the annexed supervision order are core conditions.
64A supervision order may include discretionary conditions imposed under ss34 to 38 of the Act. In making a supervision order a court must consider whether to impose conditions under s34 and s35 of the Act, which I have done.
65In considering whether to impose discretionary conditions on a supervision order, a court must consider the following:
(a) the primary purpose of the conditions of an order is to reduce the risk of the offender re-offending by committing a serious sex offence and/or a serious violence offence or an offence referred to in Schedule 3 of the Act;
(b) the secondary purpose of the conditions of an order is to provide for the reasonable concerns of the victim or victims of the offender in relation to their own safety and welfare;
(c) in order to reduce the risk of the offender re-offending, the conditions may:
(i)promote the rehabilitation and treatment of the offender; and
(ii)address the types of behaviour that may increase the risk of the offender committing a serious sex offence and/or a serious violence offence or an offence referred to in Schedule 3, or engaging in any behaviour or conduct that threatens the safety of any person (including the offender); and
(d) the conditions must constitute the minimum interference with the offender's liberty, privacy or freedom of movement that is necessary in the circumstances to ensure the purposes of the condition and must reasonably relate to the gravity of the risk of the offender re-offending.[34]
[34] The Act, s27
66The parties agreed on several discretionary conditions of the supervision order and put in contest others. Although the parties may agree a discretionary condition of the supervision order, it is still necessary for the court to consider whether any condition should be imposed.
67Below I consider what conditions to impose. While I have set out my reasons for each condition, in ordering a condition I have considered the collective effect of the conditions in undertaking the exercise required by s27 of the Act.
68In determining what discretionary conditions should apply to the supervision order, I have reflected on Dr Reeves’ intervention recommendations.[35] She notes that the respondent has good attendance at supervision sessions,[36] but has not recently engaged in treatment.[37] She considered there were multiple reasons for his lack of engagement with treatment including his belief he no longer needed it, frustration with being supervised, and shame about his past offending.[38]
[35]Dr Reeves’ report, [109] - [112]
[36]T17, L14 - 21
[37]T17, L22 - 24; Ms Newman confirmed a lack of engagement with treatment: T51, L4 to 9
[38]T35, L9 - T36, L18
69She opines that he would benefit from individual treatment that focuses on exploring the presence of his sexual interests and thought and on his intimacy skills, but that he has shown a recent unwillingness to do so. She opines that he would also benefit from ongoing support in his relationship with Ms Smith, saying that this could be addressed in the context of drug and alcohol treatment in a program, such as the Caraniche’s High Road Program.
70More generally, Dr Reeves’ opines about how she best considers that the respondent’s risk can be managed:
“I appreciate the difficult task CCS has in supporting and managing [the respondent’s] risk given his distrust of authority figures, and his fluctuating transparency and a tendency to be combative when interacting with the service. I also appreciate [his] difficulties working with CCS. I envisage that an incentive, strengths based model which contains clear, consistent, concrete outcomes associated with positive progress, and negative progress, including working collaboratively where possible to manage any transgressions, will likely be most effective when working with [the respondent].”[39]
[39]Dr Reeves’ report, [112]
71In imposing conditions, I have ordered that the PSA has authority to give the respondent directions about the operation of any conditions of the supervision order: see clause 7.1 of the annexed supervision order. This is a dynamic situation, and my expectation is that the PSA, with assistance from the respondent, if appropriate, will manage situations as they arise. This may not be easy, but the PSA will aim to ensure, amongst other things, that directions are focused on the identified unacceptable risk being that the respondent may commit a serious sexual offence and, if that the risk manifested, the likely victim would be a female stranger (rather than an intimate partner).[40]
[40]The Act, s 139
The uncontested conditions
72In respect of the uncontested conditions, I am satisfied they constitute the minimum interference with the respondent’s liberty that is necessary in the circumstances to ensure the primary and secondary purposes of conditions of a supervision order, and they are reasonably related to the gravity of the risk of the respondent reoffending. I turn now to conditions that were in issue.
Conditions relating to residency
73The Secretary proposes the following conditions relating to residency:
[The respondent] must reside each night at [the northern suburbs apartment] or where otherwise directed by the Authority.
The respondent must be present at [the northern suburbs apartment] between 10.00 om and 7.00 am during summer daylight savings hours and between 9.00 pm and 7.00 am at any other time unless otherwise directed by the Authority.
74The conditions proposed by the Secretary need to be in the context of a failed attempt by the respondent to seek permission to stay overnight at Ms Smith’s home, and the PSA having issued a direction prohibiting Ms Smith from staying overnight at his northern suburbs apartment.
75The respondent made an application to stay at Ms Smith’s home. Corrections Victoria conducted a post sentence environmental scan and produced a report dated 4 July 2025.
76Corrections Victoria relied on Dr Reeves’ progress report dated 24 April 2024 and an addendum to that report dated 7 November 2024. It did not have access to Dr Reeves’ progress report dated 2 June 2025. Ms Newman gave evidence that the progress report was sent to the Secretary for consideration of whether to apply for renewal of the supervision order and that it was not released more widely until some date in August 2025.[41] This is regrettable. The progress report records a reduction in the respondent’s risk of committing a sexual offence and includes multiple comments about how the relationship between the respondent and Ms Smith is a protective factor that reduced his risk. These would have been highly relevant to the environmental scan process.
[41]T56, L6 - 12; T69, L21 - 30
77On 1 July 2025, Corrections Victoria recommended that the respondent not be permitted to stay overnight at Ms Smith’s home for several reasons: his resistance to engaging in treatment including having discussions about risks and how to manage them, about healthy relationships, and about the risk of substance use; environmental risks factors with the building including specific residents the respondent knew and could present risks to and that there were female children and young women who could be victims if the respondent did comment a serious sexual offence; and a perception that Ms Smith was a vulnerable person with a limited understanding of the respondent’s past offending history and a concern that permitting overnight stays could lead to her being controlled or harmed by the respondent.
78Corrections Victoria’s recommendation was endorsed by the PSB on 4 July 2025. The PSB did not, regrettably, have access to Dr Reeves’ progress report dated 2 June 2025.
79In March 2025, the respondent inquired about whether Ms Smith could stay overnight at the northern suburbs apartment and was told there would need to be a further environmental scan assessment. The respondent disputed that was necessary. In early-July 2025, the respondent was asked about whether he wanted a further environmental scan assessment on whether Ms Smith could stay at his apartment. He said he did not consider that was necessary and disclosed that Ms Smith sometimes stayed at his apartment overnight. Corrections Victoria prepared the special report.
80Corrections Victoria prepared a special report dated 28 July 2025 as an addendum to the environmental scan report dated 4 July 2025. Corrections Victoria regrettably did not have access o Dr Reeves’ report dated 2 June 2025.
81In the special report, Corrections Victoria recommended that the PSA direct that the respondent not permit Ms Smith to stay overnight at his northern suburbs apartment. The reasons for this recommendation were concerns about Ms Smith’s safety, because she was perceived as being a vulnerable person who the respondent could harm or exploit, and the respondent’s perceived unwillingness to engage in discussion about risk mitigation and to request an environmental scan addendum.
82The PSA decided on 5 August 2025 to endorse the special report so that the respondent could not stay overnight at Ms Smith’s house and accepted Corrections Victoria’s recommendation in the special report so that she could not stay overnight at the respondent’s house. Although more than three months had elapsed since Dr Reeves had prepared her report, the decision of the PSA makes no mention of it, so presumably it did not have access to it.
83At the hearing the Secretary submitted that the existing conditions about residency should remain in place, with the PSA best placed to reassess residency and sleepovers with the benefit of Dr Reeves’ progress report and her testimony at the hearing.
84I do not accept the Secretary’s submissions. My power to impose discretionary conditions on a supervision order requires me to consider the matters in s27 of the Act with the material before the Court, which includes Dr Reeves’ report and her testimony.
85In terms of residency and the respondent’s submission that he should be allowed to have Ms Smith stay overnight at his northern suburbs apartment or to have him stay at Ms Smith’s place, I have permitted this as reflected in clause 6.1 of the annexed supervision order.
86Dr Reeves’ assessment of the risk of him committing a serious sexual offence and how that risk could manifest was specific to a victim who was a stranger to him; she did not assess a risk that was specific to a person intimate with him or that was specific to Ms Smith. She was generally supportive of Ms Smith staying at the respondent’s place and him staying at her place. She did not perceive Ms Smith as a vulnerable person that the respondent was or was seeking to exploit.[42] She favoured allowing sleepovers on an ad hoc basis.[43] She opined that permitting it would likely have a protective element, and it would not increase his risk of sexual recidivism though he (and Ms Smith) would best be aided with counselling about how to handle conflict in their relationship.[44] She considered the respondent should agree with a specialist case manager on a plan as to how he would manage if there was conflict that made him want to leave his apartment.[45]
[42]Dr Reeves’ report; T29, L16 - 24
[43]T30, L6 - 11
[44]T26, L24 - 27
[45]Dr Reeves’ report; T28, L24 - T29, L5
87I accept Dr Reeves’ evidence. A general prohibition on sleepovers is not necessary to manage the assessed risk and would be more than a minimum interference with the respondent’s liberty. The identified unacceptable risk is that the respondent may commit a serious sexual offence and, if that risk manifested, the likely victim would be a female stranger rather than an intimate partner. Sleepovers are likely to reduce the unacceptable risk.
88I have allowed sleepovers at the northern suburbs apartment to start in about two weeks time. There has been an environmental scan done of that premises with approval given for him to live there. He has lived there for a period without incident. The two weeks is to provide him time to discuss with a specialist case manage a plan for managing conflict. I have allowed sleepovers at the northern suburbs apartment for two nights a week to start with, and then unlimited after a period.
89In terms of residency and the respondent’s submission that he should be allowed to sleepover at Ms Smith’s place, I have allowed for this occur but delayed the start date. Already the respondent spends considerable time during the day at Ms Smith’s place without incident. I accept Dr Reeves’ evidence that there are not likely to be concerns about the building in light of this.[46] While allowing sleepovers at the building will increase the hours he spends at the building, the main risk with sleepovers is what happens if there is conflict between Ms Smith and the respondent so that she asks him to leave her home during curfew hours. This engages the risk assessed by Dr Reeves, as if it happened it would be a high-risk situation: he would be in public after dark, possibly with feelings of rejection or anger. There is a need for the respondent to develop a plan for how he would safely manage the possibility of this high-risk situation.
[46]T30, L13 - T31, L7
90I have delayed the capacity for sleepovers at Ms Smith’s place for two months on the expectation that the respondent will actively engage in risk management planning. If he does not adequately engage, the PSA could have grounds to issue a direction prohibiting sleepovers at Ms Smith’s place until he does. I have specified that the sleepovers cannot exceed 2 nights a week but given the PSA express authority to vary the number of nights, either by increasing or decreasing, depending on the circumstances.
Curfew condition
91The respondent submitted that the curfew should be from 10:00pm to 7:00am all year round. The Secretary said the curfew should vary depending on whether daylight savings is in place.
92Imposing a period of curfew seeks to manage the risk posed by the respondent and avoid him being out in public at night. The start time for darkness varies across the year and an order should reflect this. In my view, the Secretary’s proposed order does this, but the respondent’s proposal does not.
93Conditions 6.1 to 6.3 deal with curfew. It is in the form proposed by the respondent, but varied to allow sleepovers.
Electronic alcohol monitoring
94It has been a condition of the supervision order that the respondent be subject to 24-hour alcohol monitoring. By the time of the hearing, the parties agreed that the condition should be removed. I agree in the context where there has not been evidence of the respondent breaching the prohibition of consuming alcohol and the limited role that alcohol plays in the unacceptable risk, discussed in the next section.
Consumption of alcohol
95The Secretary proposed a condition that the respondent be prohibited from consuming alcohol except in accordance with the written directions of the PSA. That has been a condition of the recent supervision order, although in submissions the parties agreed that in the past when the respondent resided at a residential facility he had been permitted to consume one standard drink when accompanied in the community.
96The respondent has been subject to 24-hour electronic alcohol monitoring, but that will no longer be a condition for the supervision order. This represents a significant step down for the respondent.
97Dr Reeves identified that alcohol intoxication alone did not increase the risk of sexual offending, but that it could in combination with other risk markers lead to an increased risk. She recommended that alcohol use be managed therapeutically in the community, and that a possible starting point could be low level alcohol use in certain situations. In her evidence, she clarified this could be a couple of drinks at home or at a public venue with his partner.[47] Significantly, one matter she hoped to see at an assessment in 12 months was an ability to self-manage alcohol consumption.
[47]T41, L22 - T43, L13
98In my view, the Secretary’s proposal that the respondent be absolutely prohibited over the life of the supervision order from consuming alcohol is not necessary to manage the assessed risk and would be more than a minimum interference with his liberty. Furthermore, a general prohibition potentially for the duration of the supervision order would prevent the respondent from being able to demonstrate that he can self-manage alcohol consumption. In my view, there should be a staged approach to allowing the respondent to consume alcohol at a low level. At first, he should have no alcohol consumption to give him time to demonstrate that he can avoid alcohol without 24-hour alcohol electronic monitoring and to undertake counselling with a drug and alcohol counsellor. After three months he should be ablet to consume alcohol at home or in public, but no more than two standard drinks a day. The limit is to avoid the risk of intoxication, which would be a factor that could increase the identified unacceptable risk.
99Conditions 6.5 and 6.6 deal with alcohol consumption. I have also modified clauses 6.6.1 and 6.6.2 of the proposed order to reflect conditions 6.5 and 6.6: conditions 6.8.1 and 6.8.2 of the annexed supervision order.
Attending at liquor shops
100The respondent has been subject to a condition of his supervision order that prohibits him from attending at liquor shops, and the application sought the inclusion of the same condition.
101In my view, a condition prohibiting the respondent from attending at liquor shops is not necessary to manage the assessed risk and would be more than a minimum interference with his liberty. The respondent has been attending at licensed venues where alcohol is sold and has not been recorded as having consumed alcohol. While this can be attributed, at least in part, to the fact that he has been subject to 24 hour alcohol monitoring, which likely has a deterrent effect, it also shows a degree of self-control. He will be permitted to consume alcohol and he should be allowed to attend liquor shops to purchase it. The respondent will be subject to electronic monitoring so there can still be monitoring of how often the respondent attends liquor shops if there are concerns about his level of drinking.
Use of prohibited drugs
102The Secretary proposed a condition that:
The respondent must not use or possess prohibited drugs (including synthetic drugs), obtain drugs unlawfully or abuse drugs of any kind.
103Dr Reeves identified that drug intoxication alone did not increase the risk of sexual offending, but could in combination with other risk makers lead to an increased risk.[48]
[48] Dr Reeves’ report, [100]
104The respondent has used methamphetamine and cannabis. Dr Reeves records him as saying he has not used illicit drugs since April 2025.[49] She also records him as saying that Ms Smith does not like him using methamphetamine and that he had stopped using it because he did not want to jeopardise his relationship with Ms Smith.[50] It was not clear, but it appears that at least by June 2025 he was still using cannabis, though less so than before.[51] There are references in the materials to the cannabis being medicinal, so it may be this is not an illicit drug.
[49]Ibid, [82]
[50]Ibid, [60]
[51]Ibid, [82]
105In considering whether to include a condition that prohibits drugs, a distinction should be drawn between cannabis and other drugs. Dr Reeves’ evidence was that use of cannabis was a coping mechanism for the respondent and calmed him down.[52] As such, it could be seen as a factor that reduced his risk rather than one that increased it. The main concern is about the respondent using or possessing other types of drugs particularly methamphetamine or similar substances.
[52]Ibid; T31, L12 - 23
106I have made condition 6.7. It is in the form of the condition sought by the Secretary but excludes cannabis. The Secretary expressed concerns that this could be seen as permitting him to do something that was otherwise illegal.
107A supervision order does not permit a person to do something that is otherwise illegal. For example, the fact that a supervision order contains no prohibition on driving a vehicle over a speed limit does not mean the person can illegally drive a car over speed limit. Similarly, the exclusion of cannabis does not mean that the respondent has permission to use or have cannabis; he is still subject to the same laws as everyone else. What it does do is remove cannabis from the regime of the supervision order so that if he were to illegally have or use cannabis this would be a matter to be dealt with under the general law rather than as a breach of the supervision order.
Condition requiring the respondent to undergo treatment
108Pursuant to s38 of the Act, the court has discretion to include any other condition it considers appropriate. The examples given for this power include a condition requiring a person to undergo treatment or rehabilitation or programs.
109As noted above, there are times where the respondent has engaged with treatment and other times where he has not. Dr Reeves identifies that it would be desirable for him to have treatment.[53]
[53]Dr Reeves’ report, [109] - [112]
110An obvious issue with imposing a condition that the respondent undergo treatment is that to force him to do so when he does not wish to could inappropriately interfere with his liberty and therefore not be an appropriate condition. However, at the hearing the respondent said that he agreed with a condition that he undergo treatment.
111In the circumstances, I have made such a condition: see condition 6.9 of the annexed supervision order.
Condition about employment
112The Secretary proposed the following condition, which prohibited the respondent from undertaking certain employment:
The respondent must not engage in paid or unpaid employment or in voluntary work which involves him attending or entering into people’s homes, except in accordance with the written directions of the Authority.
113The respondent did not raise any issue with the condition.
114I raised with the parties that the wording of the proposed condition is ambiguous so, therefore, I have altered it as reflected in condition 6.13 of the annexed supervision order.
Should there be a non-publication order?
115The respondent applied for a non-publication order of the respondent’s identity and location pursuant to s279 of the Act. In deciding whether to make a non-publication order, I must consider whether I am satisfied that it is in the public interest to make such an order having regard to the matters set out in sub-paragraphs (a) and (e) of s280 of the Act.
116The Secretary opposes a non-publication order in respect of the respondent’s identity, and neither consents to nor opposes an order regarding his location. It points out that under s280(d) of the Act I must take account that the respondent has breached his existing supervision order. The breaches are serious, but it is not clear to me why they are relevant to the question of whether a non-publication order should be granted. While I have taken account of them, I have place little weight on them.
117Dr Reeves gave evidence that if the respondent’s identity and location were published this would affect his rehabilitation.[54] It could increase the risk of him reoffending. I accept Dr Reeves’ evidence. The overriding purpose of renewing the supervision order is safety and protection of the community, and that purpose could be undermined with publication of the respondent’s identity and location.
[54]T40, L22 - 28
118I was satisfied it is in the public interest for a non-publication order to be made.
ANNEXURE A
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
[THE RESPONDENT] be subject to a Supervision Order under the Act.
THE SUPERVISION ORDER commences at 2:00pm on 10 October 2025.
THE PERIOD for which the Supervision Order remains in force is until 9 October 2028.
THE LATEST DATE by which the Secretary to the Department of Justice and Community Safety (Secretary) must apply for review of the Supervision Order under Part 8 of the Act is 28 February 2027.
CONDITIONS OF THE RENEWED SUPERVISION ORDER
CORE CONDITIONS
Pursuant to section 31 of the Act, the core conditions of this Supervision Order are that, during the period of the Supervision Order:
5.1[THE RESPONDENT] must not commit a serious sex offence in Victoria or elsewhere.
5.2[THE RESPONDENT] must not commit a serious violence offence in Victoria or elsewhere.
5.3[THE RESPONDENT] must not commit an offence referred to in Schedule 3 of the Act in Victoria or elsewhere.
5.4If the Court requires [THE RESPONDENT] to reside at a residential facility or the Post Sentence Authority (Authority) directs [THE RESPONDENT] to reside at a residential facility, [THE RESPONDENT] must not engage in conduct that poses a risk to the good order of the facility or the safety and welfare of offenders or staff at the facility or visitors to the facility.
5.5If the Court requires [THE RESPONDENT] to reside at a residential facility or the Authority directs [THE RESPONDENT] to reside at a residential facility, [THE RESPONDENT] must obey all instructions given by a supervision officer or a specified officer under section 183 of the Act.
5.6If the Court requires [THE RESPONDENT] to reside at a residential treatment facility, [THE RESPONDENT] must not engage in conduct that poses a risk to the good order of the facility or the safety and welfare of offenders or staff at the facility or visitors to the facility.
5.7If the Court requires [THE RESPONDENT] to reside at a residential treatment facility, [THE RESPONDENT] must obey all instructions given by a supervision officer or a specified officer under section 183 of the Act.
5.8[THE RESPONDENT] must not engage in any behaviour or conduct that threatens the safety of any person (including [THE RESPONDENT]).
5.9[THE RESPONDENT] must attend at any place directed by the Authority for the purpose of administering the conditions of the order.
5.10[THE RESPONDENT] must attend at any place directed by the Authority for the purpose of making assessments required by the Court, the Secretary or the Director of Public Prosecutions for the purposes of the Act (including a personal examination by a medical expert for the purpose of providing the Court with a report to assist the Court in determining the need for or the form of any condition of the order).
5.11[THE RESPONDENT] must report to, and receive visits from, the Secretary or any person nominated by the Secretary for the purposes of section 31(12) of the Act.
5.12[THE RESPONDENT] must notify the Authority of any change of employment or new employment (whether paid or unpaid) at least two clear days before commencing the changed or new employment.
5.13[THE RESPONDENT] must not leave Victoria except with the permission of the Authority granted either generally or in relation to a particular case.
5.14[THE RESPONDENT] must comply with a direction given by the Authority under the emergency power in section 142 of the Act.
5.15[THE RESPONDENT] must obey all instructions given by a community corrections officer or a specified officer under section 209 of the Act.
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
Pursuant to section 34, section 35, section 37, and section 38 of the Act, the following additional conditions apply to the Supervision Order:
6.1From 10 October 2025 to 24 October 2025:
6.1.1[THE RESPONDENT] must reside each night at [the northern suburbs apartment] (the Residence) or where otherwise directed by the Authority.
6.1.2[THE RESPONDENT] must be present at the Residence between 10:00pm and 7:00am during summer daylight savings hours and between 9.00pm and 7.00am at any other time unless otherwise directed by the Authority.
6.2From 24 October 2025 to 8 December 2025:
6.2.1[THE RESPONDENT] must reside each night at the Residence or where otherwise directed by the Authority.
6.2.2[THE RESPONDENT] must be present at the Residence between 10:00pm and 7:00am during summer daylight savings hours and between 9.00pm and 7.00am at any other time unless otherwise directed by the Authority.
6.2.3[THE RESPONDENT] can permit [Ms Smith] to be at the Residence overnight, provided that in any week, she is at the Residence no more than two nights a week (or a number of nights as directed by the Authority).
6.3From 9 December 2025 to 9 October 2028;
6.3.1[THE RESPONDENT] must reside each night at one of the following:
(A)the Residence;
(B)the residence of [Ms Smith] of [Ms Smith’s home] (Ms Smith’s residence) provided that:
(1)she permits him to do so; and
(2)in any week, he be at Ms Smith’s residence no more than two nights a week (or a number of nights as directed by the Authority);
(C)where otherwise directed by the Authority.
6.3.2[THE RESPONDENT] must be present at the Residence or Ms Smith’s residence between 10:00pm and 7:00am during summer daylight savings hours and between 9.00pm and 7.00am at any other time unless otherwise directed by the Authority.
6.3.3[THE RESPONDENT] can permit [Ms Smith] to be at the Residence overnight.
6.4[THE RESPONDENT] must:
6.4.1attend for assessment for treatment or rehabilitation programs or activities; and
6.4.2participate in such programs or activities —
as instructed by a supervision officer.
6.5From 10 October 2025 to 8 December 2025, [THE RESPONDENT] must not consume alcohol except in accordance with the written directions of the Authority.
6.6From 9 December 2025 to 9 October 2028, [THE RESPONDENT] must not consume more than two standard drinks of alcohol within a day except in accordance with the written directions of the Authority.
6.7[THE RESPONDENT] must not use or possess prohibited drugs (including synthetic drugs but not including cannabis), obtain drugs unlawfully or abuse drugs of any kind.
6.8[THE RESPONDENT] must submit to breath testing, urinalysis or other test procedures (other than blood tests) approved by the Secretary or the Chief Commissioner of Police as the case may be for the detection of alcohol or drug use, at the direction of:
6.8.1an officer who has reasonable grounds to suspect that has breached one or more of conditions 6.5 to 6.7 of the Supervision Order; or
6.8.2in the event that is not residing at a residential facility or residential treatment facility, a police officer who has reasonable grounds to suspect that has breached one or more of conditions 6.5 to 6.7 of the Supervision Order.
6.9[THE RESPONDENT] must undergo a program relating to drug and alcohol treatment and improvement of interpersonal relationships.
6.10[THE RESPONDENT] must not knowingly have contact with:
6.10.1the victims of any sexual or violent offences committed by him; or
6.10.2the families of those victims;
including:
(A)any form of physical contact;
(B)any form of oral communication (whether face to face, by telephone or by use of the internet); or
(C)any form of written communication (whether electronic or otherwise),
except for contact in accordance with the written directions of the Authority.
6.11[THE RESPONDENT] must comply with monitoring as to whereabouts (including electronic monitoring) unless otherwise directed by the Authority and, pursuant to section 35(2) of the Act, [THE RESPONDENT] must:
6.11.1comply with any direction given by the Authority relating to the electronic monitoring;
6.11.2for 24 hours of each day be electronically monitored and wear an electronic monitoring device fitted to [THE RESPONDENT] ;
6.11.3ensure that the electronic monitoring device fitted to [THE RESPONDENT] remains operational (including being charged) at all times;
6.11.4not tamper with, damage, disable or remove any electronic monitoring device or equipment used for the electronic monitoring; and
6.11.5accept any visit by the Secretary to the place where [THE RESPONDENT] resides, at any reasonable time and for any purpose, including to install, repair, fit or remove any electronic monitoring device or equipment used for the electronic monitoring.
6.12[THE RESPONDENT] must not contravene the Control of Weapons Act 1990.
6.13[THE RESPONDENT] must not engage in paid or unpaid employment or in voluntary work which involves him entering into people’s homes, or attending at people’s residential premises with the intention to enter their homes, except in accordance with the written directions of the Authority.
OTHER ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
Pursuant to section 36 of the Act, the following conditions apply to the Supervision Order:
7.1Pursuant to section 36(1) of the Act, the Authority is authorised to give directions to [THE RESPONDENT] in relation to the operation of any condition of this Supervision Order.
7.2Pursuant to sections 36(1) and 36(2)(a) of the Act, the Authority is authorised to give a direction to [THE RESPONDENT] that he is to reside at a residential facility within the meaning of the Act.
7.3Pursuant to section 36(4) of the Act, the Authority is authorised to give [THE RESPONDENT] directions relating to any of the following:
7.3.1the times at which [THE RESPONDENT] must be at the residential facility;
7.3.2the circumstances under which [THE RESPONDENT] may leave the residential facility; and
7.3.3the monitoring (including electronic monitoring) of [THE RESPONDENT]'s compliance with a direction that he reside at the residential facility.
7.4Pursuant to section 36(7) of the Act, [THE RESPONDENT] must comply with any direction given under an authorisation referred to in section 36 of the Act.
OTHER ORDERS
Pursuant to section 279 of the Act, any information before the Court in this proceeding under the Act that might enable [THE RESPONDENT] or his location to be identified must not be published until:
8.1the next review of the Supervision Order is heard and determined;
8.2the expiry or revocation of the Supervision Order; or
8.3further order of the Court,
whichever occurs first.
0