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

[2020] VCC 618

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

Revised
 Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication

Secretary to the Department of Justice and Community Safety	Applicant
v
Jeffrey Randall (a pseudonym)	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	Judge Pillay
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	30 April 2020
DATE OF RULING:	30 April 2020 (Oral Reasons)
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Secretary to the Department of Justice and Community Safety v Randall (a pseudonym)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VCC 618

REASONS FOR RULING
---

Subject:  Application for Supervision Order

Catchwords:             Supervision Order - Whether order in the public interest

Legislation Cited:     Serious Offenders Act 2018
Ruling:  Application granted

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	G Coghlan	Minter Ellisson
For the Respondent	A Malik	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

1 Ms Coghlan, appearing for the Secretary to the Department of Justice (“the Secretary”) makes application a supervision order under s 13 of the Serious Offenders Act 2018 (Vic) (“the Act”). The respondent, Mr Randall,[1] is represented on the application by Mr Malik.

[1]A pseudonym

2       Mr Malik advised that the respondent did not oppose the making of the order or the proposed conditions, other than condition 6.5. There was also a dispute as to the duration of the order. It is 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.

3       I have had the opportunity to read the assessment report prepared by Mr Candlish, Consultant Psychologist, dated 10 December 2019. Based on the material in the reports, I am satisfied that the respondent poses an unacceptable risk of committing a relevant offence if a supervision order is not in effect and he is released unsupervised in the community. I am satisfied that the core conditions and additional conditions that both Counsel submit are necessary to address the risk of further offending.

4       As to condition 6.5, the applicant put that the respondent had a history of using secluded public areas to commit his offending.  This occurred in 2003, a toilet block, and in 2010, the back of a milk bar and between two buildings.  Ms Coghlan who appeared for the applicant highlighted the toilet incident and submitted that the ability to lock the toilet door was a relevant factor. She also suggested Mr Randall's impulsivity played a role in his offending

5       Mr Malik, who appeared on behalf of the respondent, submitted that Mr Randall did not target random individuals and that rather they were known to Mr Randall.  He submitted the other conditions in proposed order 6 were sufficient to constrain the risk of offending such that 6.5 was inutile.  The evidence of Mr Candlish on this point was that the other orders at proposed order 6 were, 'considerably protective'.  While Mr Candlish did opine that strangers were not the target group of victims of Mr Randall and that he sought out strangers, Mr Candlish ultimately conceded the toilets did not feature in the modus operandi of Mr Randall.

6       He did, however, opine that he could not say it was an unnecessary condition.  Given this I find that condition 6.5 is necessary given the history of offending features secluded areas and Mr Candlish's evidence of Mr Randall acting quickly in his offending, not just impulsivity but to move against the victim opportunistically.  I note toilet blocks are abundant in public places, give Mr Randall quick access to a secluded space and have the ability to be secured with locks so as to limit oversight of offending.  Even though he might be accompanied and have the other supervision orders in proposed order 6 in place, these matters are of such concern, I am satisfied to a high degree of probability that Mr Randall poses an unacceptable risk if condition 6.5 were not imposed.

7       Turning to the issue of duration of the order. The respondent submitted three years was an appropriate term and the applicant submitted five years.  I consider five years to be the appropriate time for the following reasons.  First, Mr Randall has a long antecedent history of offending and particularly since 2012 has almost always been incarcerated.  While he has had less than ideal treatment, even as at last year at the time of assessment with Mr Candlish, he was still in denial as to some of his offending.  Little progress has been made to date in Mr Candlish's opinion.

8       Second, as Mr Candlish noted, even with the best treatment, Mr Randall -, he, Mr Candlish would not be too optimistic as to the progress of Mr Randall's treatment given his antecedent history, institutionalisation to date, intellectual disability and complex needs.  Third, the need for a period of internalisation, that is a recognised change in self-behaviour before a period of assessment is likely to take a significant period of time.  Working from those factors, I accept the evidence of Mr Candlish given in his report at Exhibit A1 and evidence today.

9       I consider a period of five years appropriate for the duration of the supervision order.  I am satisfied to a high degree of probability that Mr Randall will be likely to commit a relevant offence unless subjected to an order for this length of time. 

10 I therefore order that Mr Randall be subject to a supervision order under the Act. The order is to commence on 16 May 2020. The supervision order remains in force for five years. 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 6 May 2020.

11 Finally, 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 6 May 2020.