Secretary to the Department of Justice and Community Safety v Pitt

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2024 0156

IN THE MATTER of the Serious Offenders Act 2018 (Vic)
AND
IN THE MATTER of an application for a supervision order under section 13 of the Serious Offenders Act 2018 (Vic)
BETWEEN
THE SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND COMMUNITY SAFETY	Applicant
v
LACHLAN PITT (A PSEUDONYM)	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	Elliott J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	16 December 2024, 31 January 2025 and 14 February 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	14 February 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Secretary to the Department of Justice and Community Safety v Pitt
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 60

---

PUBLIC LAW – Application for supervision order – Respondent the subject of interim supervision order – Whether the respondent poses an unacceptable risk of committing a serious violence offence – Duration of 2 years sought – Supervision order not opposed – Contested residential facility condition – Contested electronic monitoring condition – Contested prohibition on contact with victims condition – Contested prohibition on contact with children condition – 2 year supervision order made – Serious Offenders Act 2018 (Vic), ss 1, 3, 8, 13, 14, 15, 19, 27, 31, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 42, 54, 99, 110, 134, 135, 139, 142, 183, 209, 273, 279, 280, sch 1, sch 3 – Judicial Proceedings Reports Act 1958 (Vic), s 4.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the applicant	S Flynn KC	Russell Kennedy
For the respondent	M Reardon	Hofman Carroll Criminal Law

HIS HONOUR:

A. Introduction

The applicant, the Secretary to the Department of Justice and Community Safety (“the Secretary”), has made an application pursuant to section 13 of the Serious Offenders Act 2018 (Vic) for a supervision order in respect to the respondent, Lachlan Pitt (“Pitt”).[1]
[1]Lachlan Pitt is a pseudonym. Pursuant to s 279 of the Serious Offenders Act, an order has been made restricting the publication of Pitt’s identity and location: see pars 127 to 128 below.
Pitt did not oppose a supervision order being made. He did however contest a number of the Secretary’s proposed conditions.
For the reasons to follow, the supervision order will be made substantially in the form sought by the Secretary.
Further, an order will be made restricting the publication of Pitt’s identity and location.

B. Background

B.1 Offending

Pitt is presently 79 years of age. For a period of approximately 27 years between 1997 and 2024, he served custodial sentences in relation to the murder of his step-daughter and sexual offences perpetrated against his daughter.

B.1.1 Serious violence offence

On 30 April 1998, at 52 years of age, Pitt was sentenced to 24 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 19 years for the murder of his step-daughter. The court declared that 356 days had been served by way of pre-sentence detention.
Briefly, the circumstances of the offending involved a planned attack by Pitt whereby he shot his step-daughter with a revolver on 9 May 1997.

B.1.2 Serious sex offences

On 9 April 2019, following a guilty plea in the County Court of Victoria, Pitt was sentenced to a total effective sentence of 9 years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 7 years, in respect to 1 charge of indecent assault, 4 charges of gross indecency and 1 charge of incest.[2]
[2]Pitt v The Queen [2020] VSCA 73, [1] (Priest and Weinberg JJA).
The offending involved Pitt sexually offending against his daughter over a 4 year period between 1988 and 1992, when his daughter was aged between 8 and 12 years old.
That sentence was ordered to be served concurrently with Pitt’s sentence for the murder of his step-daughter.[3]
[3]Director of Public Prosecutions v Pitt [2019] VCC 487, [42] (Judge McInerney).
On 27 March 2020, following a successful application for leave to appeal and appeal against his sentence, Pitt was resentenced by the Court of Appeal to a total effective sentence of 6 years and 6 months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 4 years.[4]
[4]Pitt v The Queen [2020] VSCA 73, [55]-[56].
That sentence was again ordered to be served concurrently with the unexpired portion of the sentence Pitt was serving for the murder of his step-daughter.[5]
[5]Ibid, [57].

B.2 Procedural history

On 4 July 2024, in anticipation of Pitt’s release from custody, the Secretary filed applications for an interim supervision order and a supervision order.
The Secretary’s application for an interim supervision order was heard on 14 August 2024. On 16 August 2024, Champion J made orders granting the application for an interim supervision order for a period of 4 months, commencing on 20 August 2024.[6]
[6]Pursuant to s 54(2), the maximum period of an interim supervision order, including any extensions, must not exceed 4 months unless the court making or extending the interim supervision order is satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist.
Consequently, Pitt was released from custody and began residing at a residential facility in accordance with the conditions of the interim supervision order.
The Secretary’s substantive application for a supervision order was listed for hearing before me on 16 December 2024, on an estimated duration of 1 to 2 days. On the first day of the hearing, the court was informed that a dispute had arisen between the parties as to the contents of an incident report prepared by Community Correctional Services on 10 December 2024. According to that report, an audit of Pitt’s mobile telephone had been conducted, or at least the mobile telephone in Pitt’s possession, and revealed that the device had been used to contact a private investigator on 8 October 2024.[7] Pitt denied that he was responsible for that particular conduct and contact. Counsel for the Secretary informed the court that police investigations were ongoing and there was no further evidence then available about whether another resident at the residential facility may have been responsible for the contact in question.
[7]Shortly before murdering his step-daughter, Pitt had hired a private investigator in order to ascertain her whereabouts.
The parties were in agreement that given the potential importance of the evidence to the assessment of risk posed by Pitt, the interim supervision order ought to be extended to allow further enquiries to be made.
Having been satisfied that exceptional circumstances existed, orders were made extending the operation of the interim supervision order until 4.00pm on 31 January 2025. Orders were also made adjourning the hearing of the substantive application to that date.
At the hearing on 31 January 2025, the Secretary tendered a special report prepared by the Post Sentence Authority which confirmed that, based on enquiries made by Victoria Police, Pitt did not have contact with, or seek out, the services of a private investigator. Rather, such services were sought by another resident at the residential facility for legitimate purposes. Accordingly, the Secretary did not seek to rely on the incident report prepared by Community Correctional Services on 10 December 2024.
During the course of the hearing, it became apparent that Pitt’s daughter had not been made aware of Pitt’s application for a non-publication order in relation to this proceeding.[8] In addition, reference was made to written reasons published by the Post Sentence Authority granting supervised contact between Pitt and his sister, which were not before the court.
[8]See Serious Offenders Act, s 280(b) and pars 37, 102 below.
Following the conclusion of the evidence of the parties’ respective witnesses, the proceeding was adjourned to 9.30 this morning. On the basis that exceptional circumstances existed, the interim supervision order was further extended to 4.00pm today to enable the Secretary to properly address the court on the matters referred to above.
Those matters were addressed at the hearing today. A submission was made by a victim who requested it only be provided to the court, to counsel and their instructors on a confidential basis. This was agreed to by the parties.

C. Legal principles

C.1 Eligibility

The primary purpose of the Serious Offenders Act is to provide for enhanced protection of the community by requiring offenders who have served custodial sentences for certain serious sex offences or certain serious violence offences and who present an unacceptable risk of harm to the community to be subject to ongoing detention or supervision.[9] Another purpose is to facilitate the treatment and rehabilitation of those offenders.[10]
[9]Serious Offenders Act, s 1(a).
[10]Ibid, s 1(b).
Pursuant to section 13(1), the Secretary may apply to the court for a supervision order in respect of a person who is an “eligible offender”[11] at the time when the application is commenced.
[11]Pursuant to s 8(1), a person is an eligible offender if the person is over the age of 18 years and is serving a custodial sentence in Victoria imposed by the Supreme Court or County Court for a serious sex offence or a serious violence offence within the meaning of the Act.

C.2 Unacceptable risk

Section 14(1) relevantly provides that the court may make a supervision order in respect of an eligible offender if, and only if, it is satisfied that the offender poses, or after release from custody will pose, an unacceptable risk of committing a serious sex offence or a serious violence offence, or both, if a supervision order is not made and the offender is in the community.
The term “unacceptable risk” is not defined in the Serious Offenders Act but has been considered in the context of the predecessor to the Act.[12] Observations concerning the meaning of the term made in that context are relevant to the construction of “unacceptable risk” in the present statutory context.[13]
[12]The Serious Offenders Act commenced on 3 September 2018, and repealed the Serious Sex Offenders (Detention and Supervision) Act 2009 (Vic). That Act contained a similar scheme with respect to offenders who had served custodial sentences for serious sex offences.
[13]Explanatory memorandum, Serious Offenders Bill 2018 (Vic), 8-9. See also Secretary to the Department of Justice and Community Safety vScarborough (No 2) [2024] VSC 84, [15]-[20] (Tinney J); Secretary to the Department of Justice and Community Safety vJK [2022] VSC 727, [15]-[17] (Croucher J); Secretary to the Department of Justice and Community Safety v TA [2021] VSC 530, [32]-[34] (Taylor J).
In Nigro v Secretary to the Department of Justice,[14] the Court of Appeal observed:[15]
The legislature has deliberately selected a threshold test that does not specify a particular degree of risk. Rather, the test requires an assessment of the risk and a consideration of the nature and gravity of the relevant offence and the magnitude of the harm that may result having regard to the manner in which the offender had previously committed such an offence. It is the combination of these factors that will determine whether the risk of occurrence is of a sufficient order to make the risk unacceptable.
[14](2013) 41 VR 359. A case that was decided in the context of the now-repealed Serious Sex Offenders (Detention and Supervision) Act.
[15]Ibid, 391 [117] (Redlich, Osborn and Priest JJA).
The evaluative exercise necessarily involves consideration of the offender’s liberty and other human rights.[16] Ordinarily, it is the gravity of the consequences of the offender committing the relevant serious offence that will be the critical factor in the assessment of whether the risk is unacceptable.[17]
[16]Ibid, 387 [103].
[17]Ibid, 394 [130].
Further, in determining whether an offender poses an unacceptable risk within the meaning of section 14(1), there are specific matters which the court must take into account. Subject to certain preconditions if a report is disputed, the court must have regard to any assessment report or progress report filed in relation to the application.[18] Subject to the same proviso, the court must also have regard to any other report filed, tendered or made, or evidence given, and any other matter the court considers appropriate.[19] However, the Serious Offenders Act expressly provides that in determining whether the offender poses an unacceptable risk, the court must not have regard to the means of managing the risk or the likely impact of a supervision order on the offender.[20]
[18]Serious Offenders Act, ss 14(2)(a)(i), 273.
[19]Ibid, s 14(2)(a)(ii)-(iii).
[20]Ibid, s 14(2)(b).
The court must be satisfied by acceptable, cogent evidence to a high degree of probability that the offender poses or will pose an unacceptable risk.[21] The burden of proof rests with the Secretary.[22] The court may determine that the offender poses or will pose an unacceptable risk even if the likelihood that the offender will commit a serious sex offence or serious violence offence, or both, is “less than more likely than not”.[23]
[21]Ibid, s 14(3). See also Nigro v Secretary to the Department of Justice (2013) 41 VR 359, 363 [6] regarding the relevance of the principles espoused in Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CR 336.
[22]Ibid, s 14(5).
[23]Ibid, s 14(4).
If satisfied that the offender poses an unacceptable risk, the court then has discretion as to whether or not to make a supervision order.[24] The period of any supervision order made cannot exceed 15 years.[25] Further, the Secretary must apply to the court for review of the supervision order not later than 3 years after it was first made or any earlier first review date specified in the order.[26]
[24]Ibid, s 14(6).
[25]Ibid, s 19(1).
[26]Ibid, s 99(1)(a).

C.3 Conditions

Section 31 sets out the core conditions of a supervision order that apply to the offender during the period of the order. In addition, a supervision order may be subject to any other conditions that the court imposes under Division 3 of Part 3.[27]
[27]Ibid, s 15.
The court must ensure that any conditions (other than the core conditions) 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 conditions.[28] The conditions imposed must also be reasonably related to the gravity of the risk of the offender re-offending.[29] The primary purpose of the conditions of a supervision order is to reduce the risk of the offender re-offending by committing a serious sex offence or a serious violence offence, or both, or an offence referred to in Schedule 3.[30] The secondary purpose of the conditions of a supervision order is to provide for the reasonable concerns of the victim or victims of the offender in relation to their own safety and welfare.[31]
[28]Ibid, s 27(4)(a).
[29]Ibid, s 27(4)(b).
[30]Ibid, s 27(1).
[31]Ibid, s 27(2).
In order to reduce the risk of the offender re-offending, the conditions may promote the rehabilitation and treatment of the offender.[32] The conditions may also address types of behaviour that may increase the risk of the offender either committing a serious sex offence, serious violence offence or an offence referred to in Schedule 3 of the Serious Offenders Act,[33] or engaging in any behaviour or conduct that threatens the safety of any person (including the offender).[34]
[32]Ibid, s 27(3)(a).
[33]Ibid, s 27(3)(b)(i).
[34]Ibid, s 27(3)(b)(ii).
A condition requiring an offender to reside at a residential facility may be imposed on a supervision order only if a court has imposed on the offender a custodial sentence for a serious sex offence.[35] In considering whether to impose such a condition, the court must consider whether or not the offender should reside at a residential facility and be satisfied that no other suitable accommodation is available.[36]
[35]Ibid, s 34(2).
[36]Ibid, s 34(3).

C.4 Orders restricting publication

Pursuant to section 279(1), if satisfied it is in the public interest to do so, the court may order that any information that might enable an offender or the offender’s location to be identified not be published except in the manner and to the extent (if any) specified in the order.
In considering whether to do so:[37]
[37]Ibid, s 280.
280     Matters to which court must have regard
In making an order under section 278 or 279, the court must have regard to the following—
(a)whether the publication would endanger the safety of any person;
(b)       the interests of any victims of the offender;
(c)       the protection of children, families and the community;
(d)the offender’s compliance with any order made under this Act, the Serious Sex Offenders (Detention and Supervision) Act 2009 (as in force before its repeal) or the Serious Sex Offenders Monitoring Act 2005 (as in force before its repeal);
(e)       the location of the residential address of the offender.

D. Evidence

D.1 Expert evidence

D.1.1 Secretary’s expert evidence

In support of her application, the Secretary relied upon 2 expert reports prepared by clinical and forensic psychologist Dr Joel Godfredson (“Godfredson”). The first was dated 13 June 2024 and an addendum was dated 5 December 2024.
Godfredson also gave evidence at the hearing on 31 January 2025.
Godfredson conducted 2 video-conferences with Pitt in May 2024, as well as a 2 hour in-person interview on 4 June 2024. The video-conferences were 45 minutes and 90 minutes in duration, respectively. In his initial assessment report, Godfredson detailed Pitt’s self-reporting and presentation during his 3 interviews, his psychological developmental history, treatment, conduct under supervision in the community and in prison and his psychological testing results.
Godfredson diagnosed Pitt with a personality disorder as a result of the “net effect” of narcissistic, antisocial, paranoid and psychopathic traits. He also expressed the view that Pitt previously met the criteria for sexual sadism disorder, and that the prolonged nature of his index sexual offending inferred the presence of paedophilic disorder.
Godfredson expressed the opinion that, based on the historical clinical risk management-20 (version 3) guidelines, Pitt presented a moderate risk of committing a serious violence offence if in the community and not subject to a supervision order. By reference to Pitt’s offending history, Godfredson assessed the likely scenario for future violent offending to be murder, possibly in the context of murder-suicide. Godfredson expressed the opinion that Pitt’s victims would likely be immediate family members who have previously made statements to police, and that the risk may extend to the children of those individuals.
Based on the Static-99 and Static-99R actuarial tools, and the risk of sexual violence protocol, Godfredson also assessed Pitt as being a moderate-low risk of committing a serious sex offence if in the community and not subject to a supervision order. Godfredson stated that Pitt’s risk of sexual recidivism had been assessed as moderate-low primarily due to his advanced age. However, Godfredson noted that even if Pitt’s sexual function is impaired, such impairment would not prevent him from deriving satisfaction from having a victim perform degrading acts.
In reference to Pitt’s prior offending, Godfredson expressed the view that if the risk of sexual offending were to materialise, Pitt would likely target the female children of an intimate partner or family member.

Godfredson identified that factors such as difficulty with community reintegration, unstable accommodation, contact with immediate family members deemed “at risk” and unsupervised access to children, among other factors, may increase Pitt’s risk of re-offending. Godfredson also observed that Pitt demonstrated poor insight into his offending. Godfredson stated that his concerns were not confined to female children, but related to all children under 16 years of age.
In relation to Pitt’s proposed accommodation whilst subject to a supervision order, Godfredson expressed the opinion that without intensive transitional support, it would be unreasonable to expect Pitt to adapt to nearly 3 decades of societal progress. Godfredson recommended that Pitt be placed in a supported living environment, such as an aged-care facility or supported residential service. Godfredson also noted that staff members at such a facility would be well placed to observe any deterioration in Pitt’s mental state.
As to treatment, Godfredson noted that Pitt’s participation in treatment programs whilst in custody did not appear to have contributed to any reduction in his risk of recidivism. That said, Godfredson considered that participation in offence-specific treatment may decrease Pitt’s risk of re-offending. Godfredson noted that Pitt had commenced engagement with a Forensic Intervention Services clinician. Pitt had reportedly provided that clinician with unsolicited information regarding his prior offending, about which he externalised responsibility.
In relation to Pitt’s contact with victims and their families, Godfredson recommended that Pitt should not communicate with his former partners or their daughters, and that any breaches of active intervention orders should prompt assertive measures to protect the victims. However, Godfredson stated that he supported the view of the Post Sentence Authority that Pitt’s contact with his sister should be monitored initially and then progress to less monitored contact if there were no concerns.[38]
[38]See pars 60, 70 below.
Godfredson also expressed the opinion that in the event Pitt attempted to obtain a firearm, it should be assumed that he would pose an imminent risk of committing an offence causing serious injury or death.
During cross-examination, Godfredson expressed the view that the difference in opinion between him and the consultant forensic psychiatrist briefed by Pitt as to the level of risk posed by Pitt was “as small as it could be”.[39]
[39]See pars 52 to 61 below.
Finally, Godfredson firmly expressed his view that an order restricting publication of Pitt’s identity and whereabouts pursuant to section 279 would improve his prospects of rehabilitation. Godfredson explained that publication of Pitt’s identity and location would make it very difficult for Pitt to reintegrate into the community, which is an essential component of his risk management plan.

D.1.2 Pitt’s expert evidence

In response, Pitt relied on a forensic psychiatric report of associate professor Rajan Darjee (“Darjee”) dated 24 November 2024. Darjee also gave evidence at the hearing on 31 January 2025.
Darjee assessed Pitt during a 2 hour video-conference on 6 November 2024. Darjee set out Pitt’s personal history, forensic history, response to his custodial sentences, supervision and intervention, as well as details of the interview he conducted with Pitt on 6 November 2024.
Given Pitt’s persistent and pervasive patterns of emotional interpersonal and behavioural functioning, Darjee diagnosed him with severe personality disorder. Darjee expressed the opinion that Pitt meets criteria for paranoid, narcissistic and antisocial personality disorder. Darjee also assessed Pitt as having relatively high level traits of psychopathy.
Contrary to Godfredson’s view, in Darjee’s opinion, Pitt’s pattern of sexually abusive behaviour was not primarily due to a paraphilic disorder, such as sexual sadism disorder or paedophilic disorder, but was a manifestation of severe coercive control towards female partners and children in the context of his severe personality disorder.
Darjee expressed the opinion that Pitt presented a low-moderate risk of committing a serious violence offence if in the community and not subject to a supervision order. In his view, there was legitimate concern about the risk of targeted serious violence towards specific individuals, namely his daughter or ex-wives. Darjee stated that victim safety planning was paramount.
Darjee also assessed Pitt as being a low risk of committing a serious sex offence if in the community and not subject to a supervision order. He noted that the main protective factor was Pitt’s age. He stated that Pitt is very unlikely to have access to female family members in a domestic setting. He expressed the opinion that future scenarios where he commits similar sexual offences against females to whom he is related seems unlikely.
As to appropriate accommodation, Darjee expressed the view that requiring Pitt to reside at a residential facility and to only leave the facility in the company of an approved staff member would not be necessary if he obtained accommodation in an aged-care facility or independent accommodation with appropriate supports. However, Darjee accepted that in circumstances where there were no alternative supported accommodation placements available, ongoing placement in a residential facility was the only appropriate option.
Darjee stated that a condition prohibiting Pitt from having unsupervised contact with female children under the age of 16 years seemed reasonable in light of Pitt’s offending history. However, he noted that Pitt is unlikely to commit such offences in the future. He stated further that a condition requiring electronic monitoring would be necessary if Pitt was no longer residing in a residential facility, as such a condition would assist in monitoring and preventing Pitt from contacting his daughter and ex-wives. In Darjee’s view, electronic monitoring whilst residing at a residential facility would do little to reduce Pitt’s risk of recidivism.
As to any condition prohibiting contact with the victims and their families, Darjee observed that with the approval of the Post Sentence Authority, Pitt has had ongoing contact with his sister, and that it is unlikely that ongoing contact with her would increase his risk of committing a serious sex offence or a serious violence offence. He stated this contact should be able to continue “with appropriate monitoring”. Indeed, Darjee stated that he supported recommendations made by the Post Sentence Authority that Pitt should initially have monitored and audited contact with his sister and then be permitted to progress to less monitored contact if the contact caused no concerns.
Consistent with Godfredson, Darjee expressed the opinion that an order restricting the publication of information that might enable Pitt or his location to be identified, would improve Pitt’s rehabilitation prospects as his case has had a high profile in the past and negative reactions and actions by others could increase his risk of violence.

D.2 Further evidence

D.2.1 Post Sentence Branch of Corrections Victoria

The Secretary also called Nikkola Dimopoulos (“Dimopoulos”), an assistant manager within the Post Sentence Branch of Corrections Victoria. Dimopoulos gave evidence regarding the steps that had been taken by the Post Sentence Branch to assist Pitt in finding suitable accommodation. Dimopoulos explained that some 18 accommodation options had been explored. Most recently, on 21 January 2025, an assessment of a supported residential service in regional Victoria had been undertaken. However, the accommodation was found to be unsuitable by both Corrections Victoria and the Post Sentence Authority.
The primary concern was that the supported residential service was over an hour’s drive from the nearest community correction service where Pitt would be required to attend supervision sessions with a specialist case manager if he were to be subject to a supervision order. Dimopoulos’ evidence was that while video-conferencing was utilised during the COVID-19 pandemic out of necessity, it was the preference of the Post Sentence Authority that supervision sessions be conducted in-person to enable the specialist case manager to make a proper assessment of the relevant offender’s presentation. In addition, Dimopoulos explained that the Forensic Intervention Service is based in the central business district of Melbourne and that the Post Sentence Authority would expect Pitt to engage in both in-person and remote sessions with that service if he were subject to a supervision order.
A further issue was that in order for Pitt to participate in video-conferences whilst residing at the supported residential service, he would need to utilise the staff office. Dimopoulos explained that as Pitt would not be permitted to be present in the staff office unsupervised, he would not have the benefit of privacy during his remote treatment sessions.
On 30 January 2025, Dimopoulos received confirmation that a support service known as the Community Careers Hub would be able to provide transport assistance to Pitt if he were to reside at the supported residential service. Dimopoulos’ evidence was that this further information would be provided to the Post Sentence Authority for consideration.
Dimopoulos gave evidence that since the hearing of the Secretary’s application for an interim supervision order in August 2024, 2 other accommodation options had been explored. On 28 August 2024, a referral was made to an aged-care home in Clayton, however, the Post Sentence Authority was informed that the service provider would not proceed with the referral due to publication online in respect of Pitt’s previous offending.
A referral to another service was commenced but ultimately discontinued after consultation with a registered victim of Pitt’s offending. Dimopoulos gave evidence that the victim had expressed concern about Pitt residing at any of the 4 sites in Melbourne where the service operated. As a result, the referral was not progressed further.
Dimopoulos confirmed that the Post Sentence Branch would continue to look for alternative accommodation for Pitt. On behalf of the Post Sentence Branch, Dimopoulos acknowledged that placement at a residential facility was not a long-term option in light of Pitt’s advanced age. She explained that it was also open to Pitt to submit properties to the Post Sentence Branch for consideration, and that he remained an approved priority status individual on the Victorian Housing Register.
As to Pitt’s current placement at a residential facility, Dimopoulos gave evidence that it is not a secure facility, though there are some security features in place. These include closed-circuit television cameras, but those devices are directed to the entry of the facility and do not monitor the grounds of the facility itself. Dimopoulos explained that electronic monitoring of Pitt whilst residing at the residential facility would enable staff to monitor and manage his movements within the facility, as well as his compliance with the conditions of the proposed supervision order. Dimopoulos explained that of the 39 residents at the facility, 37 of the residents were subject to electronic monitoring. Further, Dimopoulos confirmed that she was not aware of Pitt complaining of any discomfort or difficulty with his electronic monitoring bracelet.
In November 2024, the Post Sentence Authority issued a direction to allow Pitt to have supervised contact with his sister. Dimopoulos’ evidence was that if Pitt’s monitored contact with his sister continued to pose no problems, the Post Sentence Branch would make a submission to the Post Sentence Authority to “step down” the current level of monitoring of the communications between Pitt and his sister.
On 24 January 2025, Pitt was arrested and charged for failing to disclose his mobile telephone number to the authorities in accordance with his obligations under the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 (Vic). During cross-examination, Dimopoulos confirmed that she was aware that Pitt had reported that his failure to disclose his mobile telephone number was accidental. Dimopoulos confirmed that the matter was ongoing and was returnable in court in late February 2025.

D.2.2 Evidence of victim submissions

On 13 December 2024, a confidential written submission prepared by Pitt’s daughter was filed with the court.[40]
[40]Serious Offenders Act, ss 134, 135.
As referred to above,[41] a further submission by a victim was received by the court yesterday.

E. Submissions

[41]See par 22 above.

E.1 Secretary’s submissions

The Secretary submitted that taking into account Godfredson’s evidence that Pitt posed a moderate risk of committing a serious violence offence, and the grave nature of that risk, the court could be satisfied that Pitt would pose an unacceptable risk of committing a serious violence offence if a supervision order were not made.
The Secretary further submitted that in the event that the court was satisfied that the making of a supervision order was appropriate, the following conditions should be imposed (in addition to the core conditions and certain conditions authorising the Post Sentence Authority to give directions pursuant to section 36(1)):
6.1[Pitt] must reside each night at a residential facility within the meaning of the [Serious Offenders Act], or where otherwise directed by the Post Sentence Authority.
6.2[Pitt], whilst residing at a residential facility, must not leave and/or be absent from that residential facility except in the company of a person approved by the General Manager of the residential facility, unless otherwise directed by the Post Sentence Authority.
6.3      [Pitt] must:
6.3.1attend for assessment for treatment or rehabilitation programs or activities; and
6.3.2 participate in such programs or activities —
as instructed by a supervision officer.
6.4     [Pitt] must not knowingly have any contact with:
6.4.1the victims of any sexual or violent offences committed by him; or
6.4.2    the 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 Post Sentence Authority.
6.5[Pitt] must not knowingly have any contact with female children under the age of 16 years, including:
6.5.1any form of physical contact;
6.5.2 any form of oral communication (whether face to face, by telephone or by use of the internet); or
6.5.3any form of written communication (whether electronic or otherwise),
except for contact in accordance with the written directions of the Post Sentence Authority or which is unable to be avoided in the course of his lawful daily activities.
6.6[Pitt] must comply with monitoring as to whereabouts (including electronic monitoring) unless otherwise directed by the Post Sentence Authority and, pursuant to section 35(2) of the [Serious Offenders Act], [Pitt] must:
6.6.1comply with any direction given by the Post Sentence Authority relating to the electronic monitoring;
6.6.2for 24 hours of each day be electronically monitored and wear an electronic monitoring device fitted to [Pitt] at the direction of the Post Sentence Authority;
6.6.3ensure that the electronic monitoring device fitted to [Pitt] remains operational (including being charged) at all times;
6.6.4not tamper with, damage, disable or remove any electronic monitoring device or equipment used for the electronic monitoring; and
6.6.5accept any visit by the Secretary to the place where [Pitt] 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.
6.7[Pitt] must comply with the directions of the Post Sentence Authority:
6.7.1to produce any of the following things that are in his possession or to which he has access, to a supervision officer, a specified officer or a police officer for the purposes of auditing any image, program or other material stored in or accessible from the thing:
(A)computer (including game consoles),
(B)tablet,
(C)memory stick,
(D)external hard drive,
(E)mobile telephone,
(F)camera or
(G)any other technological device capable of storing information, images, or data; and
6.7.2to provide the supervision officer, specified officer or police officer with any passwords, [personal identification numbers] or cables which are required to facilitate any audit.
6.8[Pitt] must not contravene the Firearms Act 1996 and/or the Control Of Weapons Act 1990.
In respect to proposed condition 6.1 (“the Residence Condition”), the Secretary submitted that its imposition would ensure that Pitt had suitable ongoing accommodation. It was submitted that the Residence Condition would thereby reduce Pitt’s risk of re-offending by providing him with structure and lifestyle stability.
The Secretary submitted that referrals had been made to other accommodation service providers, including aged-care service providers. However, these providers had declined the referrals primarily due to Pitt’s existing media profile.
The Secretary submitted that efforts to secure suitable accommodation for Pitt were ongoing and should alternate accommodation be identified, the Residence Condition would provide Pitt (with the permission, by way of direction, of the Post Sentence Authority) the flexibility to move to another address without requiring him to return to court to seek a variation of the conditions of the supervision order. The Secretary submitted that in any event, there would be an opportunity to review the Residence Condition in approximately 12 months’ time at the first review date, and that it was not the court’s responsibility to closely monitor the Post Sentence Authority’s progress and incentivise the authority to act by making the Residence Condition temporary, as opposed to reviewable.[42]
[42]In this regard, reference was made to Director of Public Prosecutions v DJD [2024] VSC 699, [71]-[72] (Incerti J).
The Secretary further submitted that if the Post Sentence Authority did not direct otherwise, and Pitt was of the view that there was other suitable accommodation available, then he could apply for review of the condition.[43]
[43]Serious Offenders Act, s 110.
In respect to proposed condition 6.2 (“the Accompaniment Condition”), the Secretary submitted that the condition was only sought whilst Pitt was residing at the residential facility. The Secretary submitted that the Accompaniment Condition would ensure that Pitt had the necessary support to enable him to identify and manage high risk situations before he was transitioned to unaccompanied community access outside the residential facility, or to accommodation in the wider community.
As to proposed condition 6.3 (“the Treatment Condition”), the Secretary submitted that its imposition was necessary, having regard to Pitt’s treatment needs. The Secretary submitted further that such treatment would promote Pitt’s rehabilitation.
In respect to proposed condition 6.4 (“the Prohibition on Contact with Victims Condition”), the Secretary submitted that the proposed condition was necessary and appropriate in circumstances where the murdered victim and living victim were step-sisters, and Godfredson had formed the view that Pitt’s contact with the victims’ family members may increase his risk of re-offending. In regards to Pitt having contact with his sister, the Secretary submitted this contact may increase the risk of Pitt obtaining information concerning the whereabouts of his daughter and ex-wife, which in turn may increase his risk of re-offending.

The Secretary submitted further that the secondary purpose of the Prohibition on Contact with Victims Condition is to provide for the reasonable concerns of Pitt’s victims in relation to their own safety and welfare.
In respect to proposed condition 6.5 (“the Prohibition on Contact with Children Condition”), the Secretary submitted that the proposed condition ought to be amended to prohibit unsupervised contact with any children under the age of 16 years, that is, not just female children. The Secretary submitted that the proposed condition in its revised form was necessary to reduce Pitt’s risk of re-offending. In this regard, reference was made to Pitt’s conviction for serious sex offences which were committed against his daughter when she was a child, Godfredson’s opinion that children are likely to be victims of any re-offending in respect to both serious violence offences and serious sex offences, and Godfredson’s view that unsupervised contact with children is a factor that might increase Pitt’s risk of re-offending.
In respect to proposed condition 6.6 (“the Electronic Monitoring Condition”), the Secretary submitted that Pitt ought to be subject to electronic monitoring irrespective of whether he resides at a residential facility or within the wider community. The Secretary submitted the condition would provide appropriate safeguards to ensure that Pitt complies with the proposed supervision order and transitions into the community without issue. The Secretary submitted further that electronic monitoring would allow for additional interventions to be applied, if required, to support Pitt’s rehabilitation.
Regarding proposed condition 6.7 (“the Technology Audit Condition”), the Secretary submitted that it was necessary to ensure that any device in Pitt’s possession was used in an appropriate and pro-social manner.
The Secretary submitted that in circumstances where there are no proposed restrictions on Pitt’s use of technology, enabling the Post Sentence Authority to audit his use strikes the appropriate balance. The Secretary submitted that the imposition of the Technology Audit Condition would reduce the risk of Pitt contacting the victims or their families and would thereby reduce Pitt’s risk of re-offending. The Secretary submitted further that such a condition would address the reasonable concerns of Pitt’s daughter in relation to her own safety and welfare, and that of her family.
In relation to proposed condition 6.8 (“the Firearms and Weapons Condition”), the Secretary submitted that it would provide additional deterrence to Pitt against obtaining a weapon, and would thereby reduce his risk of re-offending. In this regard, reliance was placed on Godfredson’s evidence connecting any possible attempt to obtain a firearm with an imminent risk of committing an offence which would cause serious injury or death.
In light of the magnitude of the risk of Pitt committing a serious violence offence, the Secretary submitted that Pitt would continue to pose an unacceptable risk for at least 2 years. The Secretary submitted that the imposition of a supervision order for a period of 2 years would be appropriate, having regard to Pitt’s assessed level of risk, the nature of his offending, the length of time he has spent in custody, and his need to re-establish life in the community whilst developing risk reduction strategies and putting in place appropriate supports. In addition, the Secretary submitted that a first review in approximately 12 months’ time would be appropriate.
The Secretary neither consented to nor opposed any application for a non-publication order of Pitt’s identity or location.

E.2 Pitt’s submissions

In response, Pitt did not oppose the making of a supervision order on the basis that he posed an unacceptable risk of committing a serious violence offence.
It was submitted on Pitt’s behalf that the seriousness of the consequences of the risk of homicide was axiomatic, and that the circumstances of Pitt’s murder conviction and Godfredson’s evidence established the basis for the making of a supervision order. With reference to the court’s obligation to ensure that any conditions imposed constitute the minimum interference with the offender’s liberty, privacy or freedom of movement that is necessary in the circumstances,[44] it was submitted that it was necessary to note the differences in the assessments of Godfredson and Darjee as to the level of risk posed by Pitt.
[44]Serious Offenders Act, s 27(4)(a).
It was further submitted that both experts agreed that Pitt’s risk profile is tempered by his advanced age. Moreover, it was submitted that the specificity of the risk, as opposed to a more generalised risk of violence, and the impact of Pitt’s term of imprisonment on deterring him from further offending, should not be overlooked.
As to the risk of committing a serious sex offence, reference was made to Godfredson’s assessment of the risk as being moderate-low and Darjee’s assessment of the risk as being low. It was submitted that Pitt’s risk profile was specific to female children of an intimate partner or a family member and the risk of Pitt re-partnering or otherwise being in a position of a parent was remote.
As to the proposed conditions of the supervision order, Pitt did not oppose the Accompaniment Condition, the Treatment Condition, the Technology Audit Condition or the Firearms and Weapons Condition.
In respect to the Residence Condition, it was observed that pursuant to section 34(2), the power to order a condition requiring an offender to reside at a residential facility is limited to offenders who have received a custodial sentence for a serious sex offence. Although it was accepted that Pitt met this criteria, it was submitted on Pitt’s behalf that under the Serious Offenders Act, a condition requiring an offender to reside at a residential facility is aimed at managing the risk of an offender committing a serious sex offence. In this regard, reference was made to the fact that Godfredson had assessed Pitt’s risk of committing a serious sex offence as being moderate-low, while Darjee had assessed that risk as low.
It was further submitted that the unavailability of other suitable accommodation did not warrant the imposition of a condition that would entail such restrictions on Pitt’s liberty as would occur with the imposition of the Residence Condition for the duration of the proposed supervision order. Instead, it was submitted that the Residence Condition ought to be made a temporary condition for a period of 6 months to enable the court to assess the appropriateness of the condition and whether it should be extended pursuant to section 42(1A).
Pitt accepted that if he was successful and the Residence Condition was made a temporary condition, he would not oppose the Electronic Monitoring Condition. Conversely, if he was unsuccessful, and the Residence Condition was imposed for the duration of the supervision order, it was submitted that the Electronic Monitoring Condition would not be necessary.
In respect to the Prohibition on Contact with Victims Condition, it was submitted on Pitt’s behalf that he ought to be able to contact his sister and her husband, subject to a further matter addressed below. He did not otherwise oppose the Prohibition on Contact with Victims Condition. Under a current direction of the Post Sentence Authority, Pitt is able to speak to his sister via supervised telephone calls and by appointment. However, it was submitted that the limitation on how often Pitt is able to communicate with his sister, and the required supervision of those interactions, significantly impaired his right to privacy. It was further submitted that in circumstances where it is unclear how Pitt’s contact with his sister and her husband would increase his risk of committing a serious sex offence or a serious violence offence, the restrictions were unnecessary and thus unwarranted.
Ultimately, it was submitted that if Pitt were permitted to speak to his sister without monitoring, it would be appropriate to impose a condition which prevented Pitt from engaging in conversations as follows: namely, he would not make any attempt to contact, locate, monitor, follow or keep under surveillance any victim of his offending or any family member of a victim (other than the contact with his sister and speaking about details of his sister and her immediate family), or for Pitt to ask any other person to do anything that he is prohibited from doing under the supervision order.
In relation to the Prohibition on Contact with Children Condition, it was initially submitted on Pitt’s behalf that he would not oppose the condition if it were limited to a prohibition on unsupervised contact with female children under the age of 16 years. However, after the evidence made it clear the question of supervision may be problematic, it was submitted on Pitt’s behalf that the condition should instead read: “[Pitt] must not be alone with any female child under the age of 16 years old”.
In addition, it was submitted on Pitt’s behalf that it would be in the public interest for the court to make an order restricting publication of Pitt’s identity and location pursuant to section 279. In this regard, reliance was placed on the evidence of Darjee that any publication of Pitt’s identity or whereabouts may contribute to an escalation in his risk of re-offending. It was further submitted that Pitt’s media profile has already led to a number of supported accommodation services being unavailable to him.

F. Prohibition on Contact with Children Condition revised

After further consideration, yesterday the Secretary emailed the court suggesting an amendment to the Prohibition on Contact with Children Condition, as follows:
6.5 [Pitt] must not knowingly have any unsupervised contact with children under the age of 16 years including:
6.5.1any form of physical contact;
6.5.2any form of oral communication (whether face to face, by telephone or by use of the internet); or
6.5.3any form of written communication (whether electronic or otherwise),
except for contact that is in accordance with any written directions of the Post Sentence Authority (this includes the manner in which supervised contact may occur and who can supervise that contact); or which is unable to be avoided in the course of his lawful daily activities.

(Emphasis added.)

In response, Pitt submitted the Prohibition on Contact with Children Condition should read: “[Pitt] must not knowingly be alone with any female child under the age of 16 years old” (emphasis added).
However, today a further formulation was suggested:
6.5 [Pitt] must not knowingly have any contact with children under the age of 16 years including:
6.5.1any form of physical contact;
6.5.2any form of oral communication (whether face to face, by telephone or by use of the internet); or
6.5.3any form of written communication (whether electronic or otherwise),
except for contact that is in accordance with any written directions of the Post Sentence Authority or is in the course of his lawful daily activities.
(Emphasis added.)
I was informed by counsel that based on these words, the only remaining issue between the parties was whether the condition should refer to children generally or be confined to female children.[45]
[45]This wording may still be problematic. As the position between the parties was otherwise agreed, I indicated I would proceed on the basis of only determining the outstanding issue. To be clear, it was stated by the parties as being understood that Pitt engaging in his lawful daily activities did not permit any contact any child or children under the age of 16 years other than incidental contact in going about lawful daily activities that did not involve being with children.

G. Consideration

Turning first to the question of eligibility, Pitt was an eligible offender within the meaning of section 8(1) when the application for a supervision order was filed by the Secretary in July 2024, as he was over the age of 18 years and was serving a custodial sentence in Victoria imposed by the County Court for serious sex offences within the meaning of section 3, namely, indecent assault and incest.[46]
[46]Ibid, sch 1, items 5, 52B.
As to the making of a supervision order, there was no dispute between the parties that a supervision order ought to be made. This was clearly an appropriate position to adopt as the evidence established that Pitt posed an unacceptable risk of committing a serious violence offence if a supervision order were not made and he were in the community.
As has been observed elsewhere, a judicial approach to the assessment of risk does not require a psychiatrically or psychologically underwritten guarantee that a person poses no possible danger.[47] Rather, the approach involves an assessment of both the degree of risk and the gravity of the consequences in the event that the risk materialises.[48] Both Godfredson and Darjee agreed the likely scenario for future violent offending would be targeted violence towards previous victims and alleged victims. Godfredson assessed the likely scenario for future violent offending to be murder, possibly in the context of murder-suicide. Given Pitt’s criminal history and the more recent expert evidence, I accept that evidence. In substance, there was little difference between the 2 experts on these key matters.
[47]See Nom v Director of Public Prosecutions (2012) 38 VR 618, 639-630 [65] (Redlich and Harper JJA and Curtain AJA) with respect to the assessment of risk under the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 (Vic).
[48]Nigro v Secretary to the Department of Justice (2013) 41 VR 359, 391 [117].
In respect to the analysis of the likelihood of that risk eventuating, I need not decide whether Godfredson’s assessment of the risk as moderate or Darjee’s assessment of the risk as low-moderate is preferred in order to be satisfied that Pitt would pose an unacceptable risk of committing a serious violence offence if a supervision order is not made.
It is also unnecessary to decide whether Pitt poses or would pose an unacceptable risk of committing a serious sex offence if a supervision order were not made and he were in the community.
As the interim supervision order is due to expire today, it is appropriate that the supervision order commences forthwith for a period of 2 years. Again, there was no dispute about the appropriate duration of the supervision order, noting it was agreed that the latest date the Secretary must apply for a review is 14 February 2026.
In addition to the core conditions, many additional conditions were agreed, including the Accompaniment Condition, the Treatment Condition, the Technology Audit Condition and the Firearms and Weapons Condition. In such circumstances, it suffices to say that the evidence plainly supported the making of those agreed conditions.
Turning to the matters in dispute. There was no substantial difference between the parties in relation to the Residence Condition continuing as already in place under the interim supervision order. In the absence of any alternative suitable accommodation, Pitt accepted it was appropriate to impose a condition that he must continue to reside each night at a residential facility. However, Pitt sought that the condition be made a temporary condition. This was put on the basis that the Secretary could apply for an extension if that were appropriate. The Secretary maintained the condition should not be temporary.
In circumstances where the evidence establishes that there is presently no accommodation available to Pitt beyond the residential facility at which he currently resides, it would be inappropriate to make the condition temporary. If the status quo were to remain, a temporary order were made and a 6 month period were to run without other suitable accommodation becoming available, then this could result in Pitt becoming homeless. Self-evidently, such a position would be unsatisfactory and, in turn, would present the real prospect of increasing his risk of recidivism.[49] Further, a temporary condition may only be extended once and must not exceed a 12 month period in total.[50]
[49]See par 45 above.
[50]Serious Offenders Act, s 42(1B) and (1C).
In this regard, Pitt’s accommodation arrangements may be reviewed and changed by the Post Sentence Authority if suitable alternate accommodation were to become available. Furthermore, Dimopoulos’ evidence makes clear that the Post Sentence Branch is continuing to seek appropriate alternative accommodation for Pitt and it is open to Pitt to make submissions to the Post Sentence Branch in support of relocating if he considered it viable. Moreover, there is an additional safeguard. In circumstances where Pitt is able to make an application to the court under section 110 should the circumstances warrant it, the condition does not amount to an inappropriate imposition. Instead, it can be properly characterised as constituting the minimum interference with Pitt’s liberty, privacy and freedom of movement that is necessary to reduce his risk of re-offending.
In respect to the Electronic Monitoring Condition, I accept Darjee’s evidence that while electronic monitoring would be necessary to reduce Pitt’s risk of re-offending if he resided in the community, there is very little evidence to suggest that electronic monitoring while actually residing at the residential facility would reduce that risk.
The Secretary’s reliance upon the fact that the majority of residents at the residential facility where Pitt resides are subject to electronic monitoring is of some significance, but is far from determinative. Further, Dimopoulos’ evidence that she was not aware of Pitt complaining of any discomfort or difficulty with his electronic monitoring bracelet does not demonstrate he is immune to the well-recognised detriment of being subject to electronic monitoring.[51]
[51]YBFZ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (2024) 419 ALR 457, 477-478 [57]-[62] (Gageler CJ, Gordon, Gleeson and Jagot JJ).
That being so, there are a number of countervailing factors. Although there are cameras at the residential facility, it is not a secure facility. The curfew that is imposed on its residents is monitored by checking their locations using electronic monitoring. Further, the stigma that would otherwise attach to wearing such a device is not as acute in light of the fact that nearly all residents at the residential facility are required to wear one.
Furthermore, in light of Pitt regularly being required to leave the residential facility for treatment and appointments, and Darjee recommending that he be subject to electronic monitoring in those circumstances, I am satisfied that the Electronic Monitoring Condition is necessary to provide the required protection to reduce Pitt’s risk of re-offending and to provide for the reasonable concerns of the victims.
In reaching this conclusion, I have not ignored the evidence about Pitt’s limited mobility or his inability to walk more than a few hundred metres at a time. These issues obviously do not prevent Pitt utilising various means of transport.
In respect to the Prohibition on Contact with Victims Condition, I accept the proposition that Pitt’s contact with his sister may increase the risk of Pitt obtaining information about the whereabouts of his daughter and ex-wives, which in turn may increase his risk of re-offending. I further accept the position adopted by both Godfredson and Darjee that, consistent with the approach presently adopted by the Post Sentence Authority, contact between Pitt and his sister should be monitored initially and then progress to less monitored contact if the communications between the pair present no concerns.

While I accept the submission made on Pitt’s behalf that the condition restricts Pitt’s ability to contact his sister and impinges on his right to privacy, such restrictions are justified in circumstances where the direction from the Post Sentence Authority permitting contact between Pitt and his sister was only made in November 2024 and substantial reductions in monitoring are yet to commence. Although the attendance of staff at the residential facility is required for this contact to occur, there was no evidence to suggest a lack of availability of those staff if the Post Sentence Authority considered it appropriate to increase the frequency of the calls. I also note the obligation of the Post Sentence Authority to impose the minimum interference that is necessary.[52] Further, the Prohibition on Contact with Victims Condition provides for the reasonable concerns of Pitt’s victims in relation to their own safety and welfare.
[52]Section 139 states that the Post Sentence Authority should aim to ensure any directions it gives to an offender 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 conditions, and are reasonably related to the gravity of the risk of the offender re-offending, whether by committing a serious sex offence or a serious violence offence or both or an offence referred to in Schedule 3 or by engaging in any behaviour or conduct that threatens the safety of any person (including the offender).
For completeness, I initially considered that it may be appropriate for the Prohibition on Contact with Victims Condition to include a minimum entitlement for Pitt to contact his sister on a weekly basis while being monitored. Ultimately however, the Secretary’s submission that such an entitlement would not be appropriate must be accepted. This is because, if this entitlement were to form part of the conditions, Pitt would retain that entitlement even if he were to do something inappropriate during his communications with his sister.[53]
[53]Naturally, if the condition contained the entitlement subject to any direction of the Post Sentence Authority, in substance there would be no difference in its operation.
Thus direction(s) provided by the Post Sentence Authority are the preferable mechanism for modulating the extent and circumstances of Pitt’s contact with his sister. The evidence indicated that any direction(s) provided by the Post Sentence Authority will be on the basis of its ongoing assessment of Pitt’s behaviour. Further, notwithstanding the terms of the condition, the court was told that Pitt will continue to have the ability to contact his sister provided he does not act in an inappropriate manner. Accordingly, the condition will be made substantially in the form sought by the Secretary.
On the very limited remaining issue, it is appropriate that the Prohibition on Contact with Children Condition include all children. Such a finding is consistent with the uncontested evidence of Godfredson.
On the basis of the unanimous evidence of Godfredson and Darjee as to the effect of publication of this proceeding on Pitt and his risk of recidivism, I am satisfied that it is in the public interest for an order to be made pursuant to section 279 that any information that might enable Pitt to be identified in respect to this proceeding, or his location to be identified, must not be published.
For the benefit of Pitt’s victims, and with reference to section 4(1BA) of the Judicial Proceedings Reports Act 1958 (Vic), it is noted that the order restricting publication of any information that might enable Pitt or his location to be identified does not prevent any publication in relation to his index offending. This was the agreed position of the parties.

H. Conclusion

For the reasons stated, a supervision order will be made substantially in the following terms:
1[Pitt] be subject to a supervision order under the Serious Offenders Act [“the Act”].
2        This supervision order commences on 14 February 2025.
3The period for which this supervision order remains in force is 2 years.
4The latest date by which the Secretary to the Department of Justice and Community Safety (“the Secretary”) must apply for the first review of this supervision order under Part 8 of the Act is 14 February 2026.
CONDITIONS OF THE SUPERVISION ORDER
5CORE 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[Pitt] must not commit a serious sex offence in Victoria or elsewhere.
5.2[Pitt] must not commit a serious violence offence in Victoria or elsewhere.
5.3[Pitt] must not commit an offence referred to in Schedule 3 of the Act in Victoria or elsewhere.
5.4If the court requires [Pitt] to reside at a residential facility or the Post Sentence Authority directs [Pitt] to reside at a residential facility, [Pitt] 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 [Pitt] to reside at a residential facility or the Post Sentence Authority directs [Pitt] to reside at a residential facility, [Pitt] must obey all instructions given by a supervision officer or a specified officer under section 183 of the Act.
5.6If the court requires [Pitt] to reside at a residential treatment facility, [Pitt] 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 [Pitt] to reside at a residential treatment facility, [Pitt] must obey all instructions given by a supervision officer or a specified officer under section 183 of the Act.
5.8[Pitt] must not engage in any behaviour or conduct that threatens the safety of any person (including [Pitt]).
5.9[Pitt] must attend at any place directed by the Post Sentence Authority for the purpose of administering the conditions of this order.
5.10[Pitt] must attend at any place directed by the Post Sentence 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 this order).
5.11[Pitt] 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[Pitt] must notify the Post Sentence Authority of any change of employment or new employment (whether paid or unpaid) at least 2 clear days before commencing the changed or new employment.
5.13[Pitt] must not leave Victoria except with the permission of the Post Sentence Authority granted either generally or in relation to a particular case.
5.14[Pitt] must comply with a direction given by the Post Sentence Authority under the emergency power in section 142 of the Act.
5.15[Pitt] must obey all instructions given by a community corrections officer or a specified officer under section 209 of the Act.
6ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
Pursuant to sections 34, 35, 37 and 38 of the Act, the following additional conditions apply to the supervision order:
6.1[Pitt] must reside each night at a residential facility within the meaning of the Act, or where otherwise directed by the Post Sentence Authority.
6.2[Pitt], whilst residing at a residential facility, must not leave or be absent from that residential facility, or both, except in the company of a person approved by the general manager of the residential facility, unless otherwise directed by the Post Sentence Authority.
6.3[Pitt] must:
6.3.1attend for assessment for treatment or rehabilitation programs or activities; and
6.3.2participate in such programs or activities —
as instructed by a supervision officer.
6.4      [Pitt] must not knowingly have any contact with:
6.4.1any victim of any sexual or violent offence committed by him; or
6.4.2any family member of any 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 any written direction of the Post Sentence Authority.
6.5[Pitt] must not knowingly have any contact with children under the age of 16 years including:
6.5.1    any form of physical contact;
6.5.2any form of oral communication (whether face to face, by telephone or by use of the internet); or
6.5.3any form of written communication (whether electronic or otherwise),
except for contact in accordance with any written direction of the Post Sentence Authority or in the course of his lawful daily activities.
6.6[Pitt] must comply with monitoring as to his whereabouts (including electronic monitoring) unless otherwise directed by the Post Sentence Authority and, pursuant to section 35(2) of the Act, [Pitt] must:
6.6.1comply with any direction given by the Post Sentence Authority relating to the electronic monitoring;
6.6.2for 24 hours of each day be electronically monitored and wear an electronic monitoring device fitted to [Pitt] at the direction of the Post Sentence Authority;
6.6.3ensure that the electronic monitoring device fitted to [Pitt] remains operational (including being charged) at all times;
6.6.4not tamper with, damage, disable or remove any electronic monitoring device or equipment used for the electronic monitoring; and
6.6.5accept any visit by the Secretary or any person nominated by the Secretary to the place where [Pitt] 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.
6.7[Pitt] must comply with any direction of the Post Sentence Authority:
6.7.1to produce any of the following things that are in his possession or to which he has access, to a supervision officer, a specified officer or a police officer for the purposes of auditing any image, program or other material stored in or accessible from the thing:
(A)      computer (including game consoles);
(B)      tablet;
(C)      memory stick;
(D)      external hard drive;
(E)      mobile telephone;
(F)       camera; or
(G)any other technological device capable of storing information, images, or data; and
6.7.2to provide the supervision officer, specified officer or police officer with any password, personal identification number or cable which is required to facilitate any audit.
6.8[Pitt] must not contravene any provision of the Firearms Act 1996 (Vic) or the Control of Weapons Act 1990 (Vic), or both.
7        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 Post Sentence Authority is authorised to give directions to [Pitt] 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 Post Sentence Authority is authorised to give a direction to [Pitt] that he reside at a residential facility within the meaning of the Act.
7.3Pursuant to section 36(4) of the Act, the Post Sentence Authority is authorised to give [Pitt] directions relating to any of the following:
7.3.1the times at which [Pitt] must be at the residential facility;
7.3.2the circumstances under which [Pitt] may leave the residential facility; and
7.3.3the monitoring (including electronic monitoring) of [Pitt]'s compliance with a direction that he reside at the residential facility.
7.4Pursuant to section 36(7) of the Act, [Pitt] must comply with any direction given under an authorisation referred to in section 36 of the Act.
OTHER ORDERS
8Pursuant to section 279 of the Act, the court is satisfied that it is in the public interest to order that any information before the court in any proceedings under the Act that might enable [Pitt] or his location to be identified must not be published until:
8.1      the next review of the supervision order is heard and determined;
8.2      the expiry or revocation of the supervision order; or
8.3      further order of this court,
whichever occurs first.

[2025] VSC 60

14 February 2025