Secretary to the Department of Justice and Community Safety v GNJ (a pseudonym)
[2025] VCC 1671
•17 November 2025
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE COMMON LAW DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
APPEALS AND POST SENTENCE APPLICATIONS LIST
| THE SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND COMMUNITY SAFETY | Applicant |
| v | |
| GNJ (A PSEUDONYM) | Respondent |
---
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE OVER | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 17 November 2025 | |
DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 17 November 2025 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Secretary to the Department of Justice and Community Safety v GNJ (a pseudonym) | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2025] VCC 1671 | |
REASONS FOR MAKING INTERIM SUPERVISION ORDER
---
Subject:SUPERVISION ORDER
Catchwords: Application for an interim supervision order – Renewal application made but it will not be determined before expiry of the supervision order – Whether interim supervision order justified – Whether in public interest to make the interim supervision order – Whether non-publication order should be made as to identity and location of the respondent
Legislation Cited: Serious Offenders Act 2018; Serious Sex offenders (Detention and Supervision) Act 2009; Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004
Cases Cites: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
Judgment: Interim supervision order and non-publication order as to identity and location made
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the applicant | Ms S Flynn KC | Russell Kennedy |
| For the respondent | Mr T Marsh | Greg Thomas |
HIS HONOUR:
1The Secretary to the Department of Justice and Community Safety (the Secretary) applies for an interim supervision order in respect of the respondent pursuant to s46 of the Serious Offenders Act 2018 (the Act).[1] It provides an order that contains proposed conditions.
[1]A reference to the Serious Offenders Act 2018 is to version 15 of that Act, which commenced on 22 October 2025.
2The respondent consents to the making of the interim supervision order in the form proposed by the Secretary. He seeks a non-publication order as to his identity and location pursuant to s279 of the Act, which the Secretary opposes.
3I make an interim supervision order and non-publication order as to the respondent’s identity and location. Pursuant to s133(a) of the Act, a court must state its reasons for determining an application for an interim supervision order. That obligation applies even if parties have agreed what order should be made.
Power to make an interim supervision order
4The Court may make an interim supervision order in respect of the respondent if:
(a) he is an eligible offender;[2]
(b) an application has been made for a renewal of a supervision order under s22 of the Act, but that application has not been determined;[3]
(c) the previous supervision order has expired or will have expired before the renewal application is determined;[4]
(d) it appears to the Court that the documents in support of the renewal application would, if proved, justify the renewal of the supervision order;[5] and
(e) the Court is satisfied that it is in the public interest to make an interim suppression order.[6]
[2]The Act, ss46(1), 47(1).
[3] Ibid, s47(1)(a)(i).
[4] Ibid, s47(1)(a)(ii)(B).
[5]Ibid, s47(1)(b).
[6]Ibid, s47(1)(c).
Is the respondent an “eligible offender”?
5The respondent is the subject to a supervision order first made on 15 December 2015 under s50 of the Serious Sex offenders (Detention and Supervision) Act 2009. The supervision order was renewed under s24 of the Act on 19 October 2020, and it will expire on 14 December 2025.
6Pursuant to s8(3) of the Act, the respondent is an “eligible offender” at the hearing of the application.
Is there an extant renewal application?
7The Secretary applied to renew the supervision order on 18 September 2025. As is common practice, the Secretary sought an interim supervision order if the renewal application could not be heard and determined before the expiry of the supervision order.
8The sole ground for the renewal application is that the respondent is an unacceptable risk of committing a serious sexual offence.
9The renewal application was listed for hearing on 17 November 2025. However, more time is needed. The parties say there is an issue about whether the respondent can or should be accommodated in the community at a place other than in a residential facility. More generally, the Court will have to determine at the hearing of the renewal application if the supervision order should be renewed, and if so the conditions of it. The parties sought to adjourn the hearing of the renewal application to late-March or early-April 2026.
10I am satisfied the renewal application will not be heard and determined until after 14 December 2025, being the expiry date of the supervision order.
Is an interim supervision order justified?
11The Secretary relies on the following material in the application for an interim supervision order:
(a) a progress report of Mr Ross Wall dated 21 July 2025 including the material he relied on;
(b) the antecedents of the respondent, as outlined in Victoria Police’s criminal history; and
(c) Mr Wall gave evidence limited to what effect publication of the respondent’s name and identity could have.
The antecedents of the respondent
12The following is taken from the material filed by the Secretary. For the purpose only of determining the interim supervision order, I assume that it has been proved.
13In early 2007, the respondent was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for ten years, with a non-parole period of seven years. This conviction related to index sexual offending that occurred in 2005. The respondent was made subject to an order pursuant to s34 of the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004, with a reporting period for life.
14The index offending occurred on three separate occasions, with each offence involving an adult female:
(a) in May 2005, the respondent approached the victim when she returned to her home. He grabbed her from behind. He knocked her to the ground, and banged her head on the ground, punching and kicking her. He sought to remove her underwear, but the victim managed to escape;
(b) in July 2005, the respondent attacked another victim as she entered her home. He approached her from behind, asked her for directions, then entered her home grabbing her by the hair. He punched and kicked her and put his hand up her skirt and touched her vagina twice. The victim screamed and the respondent fled the house; and
(c) in August 2005, the respondent followed and attacked another victim while she was walking. He grabbed the victim by the hair from behind and pulled her to the ground. He kicked her in the face, got on top of her, pulled up her skirt, and put his hand inside her underwear. The victim managed to escape.
15In addition to the index offending, the respondent has a history of engaging in conduct that led to convictions for sexual offences:
(a) in 1983, the respondent was convicted of assault with intent to rape, burglary with intent to rape and indecent assault. The offending involved the respondent attempting to rape a nurse at the special needs school he was attending;
(b) in 1984, the respondent was convicted of indecent assault and sentenced to probation for 12 months, to reside at a Youth Training Centre. The offending involved the respondent’s conduct to a young trainee nurse, where he touched her breasts, pushed her to the ground and attempted to kiss her;
(c) in 1987, the respondent was convicted of assault with intent to rape and sentenced to two years at a Youth Training Centre. The offending involved the responding trying to lift a woman’s dress and a girl’s dress to try and touch their vaginas;
(d) in early 1989, the respondent was convicted of two counts of aggravated assault with intent to rape and was sentenced to a total of four years imprisonment, with a minimum of three to be served. The offending related to three incidents in late 1988. The victims were aged between 17 and 28 and in each incident involved the respondent approaching the victim, becoming unexpectantly violent, grabbing her, and attempting to sexually assault her; and
(e) in 1993, the respondent was convicted of assault with intent to rape, intentionally causing injury, recklessly causing injury, indecent assault, and multiple counts of assaulting police and person assisting police. The respondent was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment for assault with intent to rape; nine months for each charge of recklessly and intentionally causing injury; six months concurrent for indecent assault and three months on each charge concurrent for assaulting police/person assisting police. The offending involved the respondent waiting for a woman in a carpark at a shopping centre where he grabbed the woman’s crotch and punched her, while planning to have sex with her.
16The respondent has been convicted of several violence offices over the period from 1991 and until late 2020. Those convictions are not relevant as the Secretary does not seek to renew the supervision order on the ground that the respondent is an unacceptable risk of committing a serious violence offence.
Mr Wall’s opinion
17Mr Wall interviewed the respondent on 11 July 2025. He had extensive additional material, which he set out in his report. Mr Wall had previously assessed the respondent on numerous occasions since 2015, with the last progress report dated 7 March 2023.
18Mr Wall set out in his report salient matters including his understanding of the respondent’s offending history, his review of the additional material, and his examination. Mr Wall employed two tools to assist in his assessment of the respondent’s risk of further sexual offending, being the Static-99R and the Risk for Sexual Violence Protocol second edition (“RSVP-V2”).
19Mr Wall opined that the respondent is a moderate to high risk of committing a serious sexual offence:
“Based on the combination of risk factors, static and dynamic as well as the file and interview material available to me it is my opinion that [the respondent] is in the moderate-high risk category of sexual recidivism if he was to be released into the community without appropriate treatment and/or a Supervision Order. If [the respondent] were to reoffend sexually, his offending would against adult females, and it would most likely be violent and penetrative.”[7]
[7] Mr Wall’s progress report dated 21 July 2025, [151].
20Mr Wall identified further factors that could increase the respondent’s risk of offending: persistent negative moods, passive noncompliance, social withdrawal, boredom and frustration, intrusive and concerning throughs, failure to reach out for support when experiencing emotional distress, negative and blaming attitudes toward staff that remain unresolved, thoughts of alcohol consumption, and persistent symptoms of depression.
21Mr Wall assessed the respondent’s risk of committing a serious violence offence. That part of his report is not relevant given the Secretary does not seek to renew the supervision order on the ground that the respondent is an unacceptable risk of committing a serious violence offence.
22The respondent did not file a notice of intention to dispute Mr Wall’s progress report,[8] and at the hearing he did not seek to cross-examine Mr Wall about his assessment of the risk of the respondent committing a serious sexual offence.
[8]The Act, s271.
23Mr Wall’s report did not state his opinion about how publishing one or both the respondent’s name and identity could affect his risk of committing a serious sexual offence. This meant the Secretary called Mr Wall to give evidence, but only on that subject.
24I am satisfied that the material relied upon by the Secretary, if proved, would justify the renewal of the supervision order on the basis that he is an unacceptable risk of committing a serious sexual offence.[9] It would appear to support a finding that that he is a moderate to high risk of committing a serious sexual offence, and if this risk manifested it would cause harm and trauma to any victim. Whether in fact the respondent is an unacceptable risk, and whether there should be a renewal of the supervision order, remain to be determined at the hearing of the renewal application.
[9]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.
Is it in the public interest to make the interim supervision order?
25I am satisfied it is in the public interest to make the interim supervision order. There is material which, if proved, would show that the respondent is an unacceptable risk of committing a sexual offence.
26The Secretary has made a renewal application and there is a need for a stop-gap measure to be put in place to protect the community before that application is heard and determined.
The conditions of the interim supervision order
27The conditions of the interim supervision order are based on the conditions of the existing supervision order.
28Having made an interim supervision order, the Court had to determine the conditions of the order.[10] That power needs to be seen in the following context:
[10]The Act, s49.
(a) an interim supervision order must contain the core conditions set out in s31 of the Act;[11]
[11]Ibid, s31, which applies by operation of s49.
(b) a court must consider whether to impose the discretionary conditions referred to in ss34 and 35,[12] and it has a discretion to impose a condition under ss36 to 38 of the Act;
[12] Ibid, s33, which applies by operation of s49.
(c) in deciding whether to impose conditions on an interim supervision order, a court must consider the following:
(i)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;
(ii)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;
(iii)to reduce the risk of the offender re-offending, the conditions may:
1) promote the rehabilitation and treatment of the offender; and
2) 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
(iv)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 relate to the gravity of the risk of the offender re-offending.[13]
[13] Ibid, s27, which applies by operation of s49.
29The parties agreed the conditions of the interim supervision order, though it was flagged that at the hearing of the renewal application there may be a contest, particularly about residency conditions.
30Having reviewed the material in support of the renewal application and assuming it is proved, I consider that the proposed conditions are necessary and appropriate in that:
(a) they seek to reduce the risk identified by Mr Wall of the respondent committing a serious sexual offence by prohibiting conduct that could constitute an offence and limiting or prohibiting conduct could be a precursor to him committing an offence;
(b) they protect his past victims by prohibiting him from contacting them; and
(c) they provide a system of supervision that interferes with his liberty, privacy, and freedom of movement but that inference is justified. Furthermore, the level of supervision, while onerous, provides him with a path for rehabilitation.
Should a non-publication order be made?
31The respondent seeks a non-publication order in respect of his identity and his location pursuant to s279 of the Act. The Secretary opposes the making of the order.
32I make a non-publication order in respect of the respondent’s identity and location for the following reasons:
(a) I accept Mr Wall’s evidence that publishing one or both the respondent’s name and location would increase the risk of him committing a serious sexual offence. Publication would undermine the primary purpose of supervision, which is to protect the community;
(b) I accept Mr Wall’s evidence that the respondent is an emotionally vulnerable man who recently has shown positive progress with rehabilitation and that publication would set back his rehabilitation, as well as cause him trauma and put him at risk of self-harm. Publication would undermine his rehabilitation, contrary to the secondary purpose for supervision; and
(c) I have taken account of the matters in s280 of the Act. This includes that the respondent has not complied at times with the supervision order. He has breached the order and has been convicted of breaching the order. He has been subjected to directions that increase his level of supervision because of non-compliant conduct. The respondent’s non-compliance does not justify publishing his identity and location and nor would it ensure or aid future compliance; to the contrary it would make non-compliance more likely based on Mr Wall’s opinion.
0
3
0