Secretary to the Department of Justice and Community Safety v SM (No 2)

The case before the court involved the Secretary to the Department of Justice and Community Safety, acting as the applicant, and SM, the respondent, who was the subject of an interim supervision order. The Secretary sought a supervision order under the Serious Offenders Act 2018 (Vic) due to SM’s unacceptable risk of committing a serious violence offence. The respondent had previously contravened conditions of the interim order and this led to delays in the hearing of the application. The court was tasked with determining whether a supervision order should be made, what conditions should be imposed, and the duration of the order.

The legal issues before the court included whether SM represented an unacceptable risk of committing a serious violence offence, the appropriateness of the conditions proposed by the Secretary, and the duration of the supervision order. The court had to consider the purposes of the supervision order, the need for specific conditions to mitigate risks, and the balance between SM’s rights and the need to protect the public. The court also examined the respondent’s history of non-compliance with supervision orders and the potential for alcohol misuse to exacerbate SM’s risk profile.

The court found that SM presented an unacceptable risk of committing a serious violence offence, considering his history of non-compliance and the potential for alcohol to disinhibit him. It was determined that specific conditions were necessary to manage this risk. The court imposed a residence requirement, a curfew, restrictions on alcohol consumption, and other monitoring conditions. The duration of the supervision order was set for three years, reflecting the need for ongoing management of SM’s risk profile. The court acknowledged the existence of protective factors but concluded that they were not sufficient to mitigate the high risk of reoffending.

The court made a supervision order for a period of three years, imposing conditions to manage SM’s risk of committing a serious violence offence. The order included a residence requirement, a curfew, restrictions on alcohol consumption, and other monitoring measures. The court’s decision was based on the unacceptable risk posed by SM, his history of non-compliance, and the potential for alcohol to exacerbate his risk profile. The court balanced SM’s rights with the need to protect the public, determining that the imposed conditions and duration of the order were necessary to achieve this balance.