Secretary to the Department of Justice and Community Safety v Davis (a pseudonym)
[2020] VCC 315
•25 March 2020
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE COMMON LAW DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
| Secretary to the Department of Justice and Community Safety | Applicant |
| v | |
| Jake Davis (a pseudonym) | Respondent |
---
JUDGE: | Judge Pillay | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 28 February 2020 | |
DATE OF RULING: | 25 March 2020 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Secretary to the Department of Justice and Community Safety v Davis (a pseudonym) | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2020] VCC 315 | |
REASONS FOR RULING
---
Subject: Application for Renewal of Supervision Order
Catchwords: Supervision order – whether respondent poses unacceptable risk of committing offence – whether in the interests of justice to hear application in shorter period
Legislation Cited: Serious Offenders Act 2018
Ruling: Application granted
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Applicant | Ms S Fitzgerald | Russell Kennedy |
| For the Respondent | Ms B Robertson | Victoria Legal Aid |
HIS HONOUR:
1 Ms Fitzgerald, appearing for the Secretary to the Department of Justice (“the Secretary”) makes application for renewal of a supervision order under s 22(1) of the Serious Offenders Act 2018 (Vic) (“the Act”). The respondent, Mr Davis,[1] is represented on the application by Ms Robertson.
[1]A pseudonym
2 The current supervision order remains in force until 9 March 2020. The application for renewal of this order was made by the Secretary on 5 March 2020. Section 125(1)(a) of the Act prohibits the hearing of a renewal application until at least 25 working days have passed unless it is in the interests of justice for the application to be heard within a shorter period.
3 I am satisfied that it is in the interests of justice for time to be abridged in this matter for 2 reasons.
4 First, the reports of Dr Karen Owen dated 14 November 2019 and 28 February 2020, and Ms Kathryn Anglin and Ms Amy McLeish dated 25 February 2020 indicate that the risk posed by Mr Davis may escalate without a better supported transition environment. This application provides the structure for such a supported transition.
5 Second, the administrative convenience both to the Court and to the Secretary as to the way that orders might be made in the coming months. The making of this order at this time provides certainty to the parties.
6 Turning to the substantive application, Ms Robertson advised that the respondent did not oppose the making of the order or the proposed conditions. However, it is still a matter for me to determine whether the test for the making of the order has been met and if so, the conditions that are appropriate on the order.
7 I have had the opportunity to read the assessment reports prepared by Dr Karen Owen, Clinical and Forensic Psychologist, dated 14 November 2019 and 28 February 2020. Based on the material in those reports, I am satisfied that the respondent poses an unacceptable risk of committing a relevant offence if a supervision order is not in effect and he is released unsupervised in the community. I am satisfied that the core conditions and additional conditions that both Counsel submit are necessary to address the risk of further offending.
8 I therefore order that Jake Davis be subject to a supervision order under the Act. The order is to commence on 6 March 2020. The supervision order remains in force for a period of six months. The supervision order is to be subject to the conditions consented to by the respondent and detailed in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the formal order signed by me on 6 March 2020.
0
0
0