Secretary to the Department of Justice and Community Safety v Hale (a pseudonym) (Ruling)

[2021] VCC 598

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication

APPEALS AND POST SENTENCE APPLICATIONS LIST

Case No. CR-16-00509

SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND COMMUNITY SAFETY	Plaintiff
v
ZACHARY HALE (a pseudonym)	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE PILLAY
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	14 May 2021
DATE OF RULING:	17 May 2021
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Secretary to the Department of Justice and Community Safety v Hale (a pseudonym) (Ruling)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VCC 598

RULING
---

Subject:APPLICATION FOR SUPERVISION ORDER

Catchwords:              Supervision Order – whether a review period of 2 or 3 years should be imposed

Legislation Cited:      Serious Offenders Act 2018

Ruling:  Application granted.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr A Imrie	Minter Ellison
For the Defendant	Mr M Sturges	Stary Norton Halphen

HIS HONOUR:

1Mr Imrie, 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 Hale,[1] is represented on the application by Mr Sturges.

[1]        A pseudonym

2Mr Hale’s Counsel advised that the respondent did not oppose the making of the order or the proposed conditions save for the length of the review period. 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.

3I have had the opportunity to read the assessment reports prepared by Dr Godfredson, Clinical and Forensic Psychologist, dated 8 September 2020 and Dr Davis, Consultant Forensic Psychologist, dated 4 May 2021. Based on the material in those reports and the respondent’s antecedent offending and sentencing history, 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.

4The Secretary seeks a review period of the statutory maximum of three years.[2] In contrast Mr Sturges on behalf of Mr Hale submitted that a review period of two years ought to be imposed. Mr Sturges relied on the fact that Mr Hale is to commence a different anti-libinal drug in the near future and will soon transition out of Corella Place. Mr Sturges also pointed to the report of Dr Davis in particular at paragraph 174 which states:

the presumed containing effect of Mr. [Hale’s] anti-libidinal medication, and his capacity to reside in the community in a stable fashion, should be reasonably clear within two years.

Since 2019, Mr Hale has expressed interest in transitioning out of Corella Place. However, these efforts have been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Mr Hale has been compliant with treating doctors and taking anti-libinal medication. Mr Sturges suggested these above matters are strong evidence of an ingrained improvement in behaviour, which, but for, the COVID-19 pandemic would have resulted in an earlier relaxation of the conditions of the supervision order. On this basis a two year review period was sought. Counsel for the Secretary submitted there is nothing in the material before the Court that suggests that Mr Hale’s risk will materially reduce within two years such that a shorter review period would be of some utility.

[2]        Serious Offenders Act 2018 (Vic) s 99(1)

5I accept Mr Sturges’ submission for two reasons. Firstly, a two year review period would provide Mr Hale a degree of hope, aligned with his sustained compliance and expressed desire for transition over several years already. This reflects the purpose of the Act[3] without derogating from s 5. With a shorter review period, in the event he is making considerable progress with his transition into the community, Mr Hale will have hope that it may be possible to be subject to a less restrictive supervision order sooner. Secondly, the Act requires conditions (other than core conditions) to ‘constitute the minimum interference with the offender’s liberty’.[4]

[3]        Serious Offenders Act 2018 (Vic) s 1(b)

[4]        Serious Offenders Act 2018 (Vic) s 27(4), 16(g)

6I therefore order that Mr Hale continues to be subject to a supervision order under the Act. The supervision order remains in force until 7 July 2031. The supervision order is to be subject to the conditions consented to by the respondent and detailed in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the formal order signed by me on 14 May 2021.

7Finally, I make an order pursuant to s 279 of the Act, that it is in the public interest to prohibit publication of information that might enable the respondent or his whereabouts to be identified. The form of the order under s 279 is set out in paragraph 8 of the formal order signed by me on 14 May 2021.