Secretary to the Department of Justice and Community Safety v YDA (a pseudonym)
[2025] VCC 1530
•27 October 2025
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL 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 | |
| YDA (a pseudonym) | Respondent |
---
JUDGE: | His Honour Judge Over | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 22 October 2025 | |
DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 27 October 2025 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Secretary to the Department of Justice and Community Safety v YDA (a pseudonym) | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2025] VCC 1530 | |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
---
Subject:SUPERVISION ORDER
Catchwords: Application to review and confirm a supervision order with varied conditions – Respondent a moderate risk of committing serious sex offence – The respondent consented to confirming the supervision order and the varied conditions of the order – Supervision order confirmed with varied conditions – Contest about whether to make a non-publication order – Non-publication order made
Legislation Cited: Serious Offenders Act 2018; Serious Sex Offenders (Detention and Supervision) Act 2009
Cases Cited: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: Supervision order confirmed with varied conditions, and non-publication order made
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Applicant | Mr A Imrie | Victorian Government Solicitor’s Office |
| For the Respondent | Ms B East | Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service |
HIS HONOUR:
Introduction
1The Secretary to the Department of Justice and Community Safety (“the Secretary”) applied to review a supervision order in respect of the respondent pursuant to s99(1) of the Serious Offenders Act 2018 (“the Act”).[1] The Secretary sought for the supervision order to be confirmed on the grounds that the respondent poses an unacceptable risk of committing a serious sexual offence.
[1]A reference to the Serious Offenders Act 2018 is to version 14 of that Act, which commenced on 11 September 2025.
2By the time of the hearing, the parties had agreed the supervision order should be confirmed with varied conditions, as contained in a proposed form of orders provided to the Court. The respondent sought a non-publication order as to his identity and location pursuant to s279 of the Act. The Secretary opposed a non-publication order as to his identify, and it did not consent nor oppose such an order as to his location.
3The issues in the proceeding were the following:
(a) whether the supervision order should be confirmed or revoked;
(b) if the supervision order was confirmed, whether any of the conditions of the order should be varied, added to or removed; and
(c) whether there should be a non-publication order as to one or both the respondent’s identity and location.
4The Court made an order on 22 October 2025 that confirmed the supervision order, imposed conditions on that order in accordance with the parties proposed orders, and made a non-publication order for the respondent’s identify and location. A version of the order made is annexed to these reasons but with information that could identify the respondent or his location removed.
5These are my reasons for the order made. Pursuant to s133(a) of the Act, a court must state its reasons for its determination of a review. That obligation applies even if parties have agreed what order should be made.
The purpose of the review
6The purpose of reviewing the supervision order is to determine whether it should remain in operation or be revoked, and if it is revoked, whether it should be replaced with a different supervision order or a detention order.[2]
[2] The Act, s104
7In a review, a court has power to confirm or revoke the order.[3] A court can only confirm a supervision order if satisfied that a respondent “poses … an unacceptable risk of committing a serious sex offence or a serious violence offence or both if a supervision order is not in effect and [he or she] is in the community”.[4] An applicant has the burden of proving that a respondent poses or will pose an unacceptable risk.[5] In determining whether there is such a risk, a court must have regard to specified matters[6] and must not have any regard to the means of managing the risk or the likely impact of a supervision order on the respondent.[7] Further, a court must be satisfied by acceptable, cogent evidence to a high degree of probability that the respondent poses or will pose an unacceptable risk.[8]
[3] Ibid, sub-ss106(1) and(4)
[4] Ibid, sub-s106(1)
[5] Ibid, sub-ss106(3) and s14(5)
[6]Ibid, s105(1)
[7] Ibid, s106 and sub-s14(2)(b)
[8] Ibid, s106 and sub-s14(3)
8The term “unacceptable risk” is not defined in the Act. The Court of Appeal in Nigro v The Secretary to the Department of Justice[9] considered the use of the term “unacceptable risk” in the context of the making of supervision orders under the Serious Sex Offenders (Detention and Supervision) Act 2009, the predecessor of the Act, and held that it requires an assessment of the risk and consideration of the nature and gravity of the offence and the harm that may result if the risk manifested.[10] The Court of Appeal’s interpretation has been applied to the use of the term “unacceptable risk” in the Act.[11]
[9](2013) 41 VR 359
[10] Ibid, [6] and [117]
[11]See, for example, Secretary to the Department of Justice and Community Safety v SJW(No 2) [2023] VSC 506, [29] and [30]; Secretary to the Department of Justice and Community Safety v SJW (No 3) [2025] VSC 441, [15]
The supervision order to date
9The supervision order was made on 1 August 2012 under the Serious Sex Offenders (Detention and Supervision) Act 2009. It is scheduled to expire on 15 November 2027.
10There have been multiple reviews of it leading to it being confirmed on 30 March 2016, varied on 22 February 2018, confirmed on 5 August 2019 and confirmed on 6 December 2022.
11Although the supervision order was made under the Serious Sex Offenders (Detention and Supervision) Act 2009, an application for review is made and determined under the Act.[12]
[12]Schedule 4 of the Act, sub-cls4(1), (4) and (5)
The respondent’s relevant offending
12The respondent’s index sexual offending occurred in early 1995. On the last day of a crime spree over about two weeks, the respondent came up behind a female he did not know, who was walking along a bicycle and walking path. He grabbed her, forced her into nearby bushes, forced himself on to her, penetrated her vagina with his penis, forced her to perform fellatio on him, and attempted to penetrate her anus with his penis. He used physical force on the victim and threatened to kill her.
13In 1996, in respect of his conduct in early 1995 and more generally the crime spree, the respondent was convicted of three counts of rape, attempted rape, indecent assault, two common law counts of false imprisonment, burglary, robbery and assault with intent to rob, reckless conduct endangering serious injury, unlawful assault, criminal damage with intent to damage, and theft. An indefinite sentence was imposed.
14The respondent sought to appeal the indefinite sentence. The Court of Appeal refused his application for leave to appeal in 1996.
15In late 2007, the respondent’s indefinite sentence was discharged and instead he became subject to a five-year reintegration program administered by the Adult Parole Board.
16In addition to the index offending, the respondent has a history of sexual and violent offending.
17In late 1991, the respondent was convicted of assault with intent to rape and burglary and was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years. In late 1991, the respondent, in a separate instance, was convicted of intentionally causing injury.
18In early 1991, the respondent was convicted of burglary and criminal damage.
19In late 1989, the respondent was convicted of escape from lawful custody.
20In mid-1985, the respondent was sentenced to three years of detention in a youth training centre for convictions of assault with intent to rape and aggravated indecent assault. In late 1986, the respondent was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years for aggravated rape, indecent assault, burglary, two charges of indecent assault, and attempted rape.
Dr Bea Raymond’s opinion
21On the question of unacceptable risk, the Secretary relied upon a progress report by Dr Bea Raymond, a psychologist, dated 2 June 2025, her letter of advice dated 4 July 2025, which clarified her assessment of risk contained in the progress report, and her oral evidence at hearing. The respondent did not file a notice of intention to dispute the progress report or the letter of advice,[13] and at the hearing did not cross-examine Dr Raymond about her assessment of the risk of the respondent committing a serious sexual offence.
[13]The Act, s271
22Dr Raymond interviewed the respondent on 23 April 2025, and 24 April 2025. She had extensive additional material, which she set out in her report. She had not previously assessed the respondent, though she considered reports, including the last report by Distinguished Professor James R P Ogloff dated 20 May 2022.
23Dr Raymond set out in her report salient matters including her understanding of the respondent’s offending history, her review of the additional material, and her examination. She employed two tools to assist in her assessment of the respondent’s risk of further offending, being the Static-99R with the assistance of the and the Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for Sex Offending (“SAPROF-SO”), and the Risk for Sexual Violence Protocol second edition (“RSVP-V2”).
24Dr Raymond’s opinion in her progress report about her assessment of the risk of the respondent committing a serious sexual offence was clarified by her addendum via the letter of advice.
25Dr Raymond opined the respondent is a moderate risk of committing a further sexual offence.[14] She opined about what would likely happen if the respondent did sexually offend:
“If risk materialises, the offences would be similar to the previous offences and may involve penetration after he has subdued the unknown female victim. The offending would be without planning, involving a level of impulsivity, and likely involve the use of additional violence during a period of general instability and likely exacerbated by substance abuse.”[15]
[14]Dr Raymond’s progress report dated 2 June 2025 (“Raymond’s report”), [109] and [120]; but noting that Dr Raymond clarifies in her letter of advice that the level of risk is moderate rather than moderate to high.
[15] Raymond’s report, [109]
26Dr Raymond identified factors that could increase the respondent’s risk of offending: poor emotional regulation, history of using violence when sexually offending, antisocial attitudes and beliefs, antisocial personality disorder and features associated with psychopathy, and alcohol and substance abuse. She identified factors that decrease the risk of offending: continued engagement in treatment, no evidence of sexual preoccupation, supports that assist him to reside in the community and manage his anger, and engagement meaningful daily activities to reduce boredom.
Should the supervision order be revoked or confirmed?
27I had regard to Dr Raymond’s opinion in her progress report and her letter of advice, her oral evidence, and Corrections Victoria’s special report endorsed on 15 October 2025 including an attachment entitled “Initial step-down plan”.
28I considered that Dr Raymond’s opinion is acceptable, cogent evidence of a high degree of probability that the respondent poses an unacceptable risk of committing a serious sexual offence. If that risk eventuated it would lead to one or more female victims being raped, likely with the use of violence to enforce the rape; this would be a gross breach of any victim’s autonomy and cause any victim physical and mental harm that could be lifelong.
29As I was satisfied of the matter in s106(1) of the Act, I confirmed the supervision order made on 1 August 2012.
When should the supervision order next be reviewed?
30The Court has a discretion to vary the maximum interval between applications for review.[16] The parties did not seek a variation, and I did not consider there was a need for a variation. The interval for reviews is three years.[17] The supervision order is scheduled to expire on 15 November 2027. There will not be a review of the supervision order before the scheduled expiry. The question of further reviews may arise if the Secretary applies to renew the supervision order and that question should be answered in the context of an application for renewal, if made.
[16]The Act, sub-s106(5)(b)
[17]Supervision order made by Montgomery J on 1 August 2012, cl 2; the Act, s99
What conditions should the supervision order contain?
31Having confirmed the supervision order, the Court had a discretion to vary, add or remove any condition of the order.[18] That discretion needs to be seen in the following context:
[18]The Act, sub-s106(5)(a)
(a) a supervision order must contain the core conditions set out in s31 of the Act;[19]
[19]Schedule 4 of the Act, sub-cl4(3); the Act, s31
(b) if the conditions of a supervision order are varied, added to or removed, a court must consider whether to impose the discretionary conditions referred to in ss34 and 35,[20] and it has a discretion to impose a condition under ss36 to 38 of the Act;
[20] The Act, s33 and sub-ss106(5) and (6)
(c) in deciding whether to impose conditions on a supervision order under ss34 to 38 of the Act, 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)in order 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 reasonably relate to the gravity of the risk of the offender re-offending.[21]
[21] The Act, s27; and sub-s106(6)
32By the time of hearing, the parties had agreed the proposed conditions of the supervision order. The agreement did not obviate the need for the Court to be satisfied of relevant matters or to give reasons for its determination.
33I reviewed the proposed conditions of the supervision order and the material including Dr Raymond’s opinion in her progress report, letter of advice and oral evidence, and Corrections Victoria’s special report endorsed on 15 October 2025 including an attachment entitled “Initial step down plan”.
34I was satisfied the proposed conditions constitute the minimum interference with the respondent’s liberty that is necessary in the circumstances to ensure the primary and secondary purposes of conditions of a supervision order, and they are reasonably related to the gravity of the risk of the respondent committing a serious sexual offence. Given the parties agreed the conditions of the supervision order, I will limit my reasons for the determination to the following general comments:
(a) the respondent is a First Nations man in his fifties. His childhood was traumatic. He was given up for adoption at four-months-old. He was placed in a home with non-Aboriginal parents who abused alcohol. He was the subject of abuse and violence as a child and witnessed the violence being perpetrated on others such as his adoptive mother. His childhood was impoverished and lacked in many respects the stability needed for his proper development;
(b) the respondent has lived an unstable life. He has spent much of it in jail. He has abused drugs and alcohol. He has a limited work history. He has committed sexual and violence offences;
(c) he was released from jail in 2012, which is when the supervision order was first made. Since then, he has lived in supported accommodation in the community or been imprisoned, rather than living independently in the community. He has at times been anti-social and engaged in violence and abuse, including against people who have sought to assist him. He has at times abused drugs and alcohol. He has had variable levels of engagement with treatment and support, but more recently has had relatively good engagement;
(d) conditions 4.1 to 4.15 are core conditions that must be imposed in accordance with s33 of the Act;
(e) I considered whether to impose conditions referred to in ss34 to 35 and imposed conditions 5.1 to 5.10 and 6.1 to 6.4 as:
(i)the respondent has complex needs that are best managed in supported accommodation to manage the unacceptable risk. The residence in condition 5.1 is supported accommodation. The respondent is assisted in most activities of daily living, and he likes living there;[22]
(ii)the curfew in condition 5.2 is needed because if the respondent was able to move freely in public at night it would make it more likely the unacceptable risk could manifest;
(iii)the requirement in condition 5.3 that the respondent be accompanied when he leaves the residence curtails his liberty significantly, but this is justified. The progress report details the difficulties that the respondent has in accessing the community and the considerable support that he has needed and been provided with. The report describes the impressive efforts by Community Correctional Services and the respondent to put in place plans that step-down the level of support and provide the respondent with more liberty. This is a complex situation and I am satisfied that it is best managed by Community Correctional Services;
(iv)condition 5.4 requires the respondent to attend and participate in treatment and rehabilitation programs. This is appropriate given Dr Raymond’s opinion that his participation in treatment and rehabilitation program would likely help to reduce the unacceptable risk;
(v)conditions 5.5, 5.6 and 5.7 are directed to preventing drug and alcohol use and enabling detection if either should occur. They are appropriate in the context where Dr Raymond identified drug and alcohol use as increasing the unacceptable risk;
(vi)condition 5.8 is necessary to protect past victims and their families in circumstances where there is no rational basis for the respondent to be attempting to contact them;
(vii)condition 5.9 is appropriate to ensure the curfew and accompaniment conditions are not being breached;
(viii)condition 5.10 is appropriate to prevent the possession or use of a weapon which could be used in planning or perpetrating a sexual offence; and
(ix)conditions 6.1 to 6.4 are appropriate given that the supervision order has just over two years to run. The respondent’s situation has waxed and waned in the past and it is likely that will continue. There is a need for flexibility and the conditions imposed under s36 of the Act provide power to the Post Sentence Authority to manage changes in circumstances.
[22]Raymond’s report, [75]
Should a non-publication order be made?
35The respondent applied under s279 of the Act for a non-publication order in respect of his identity and his location. In determining whether to make such an order, I had to take account of the matters in s280 of the Act, which I did.
36The Secretary opposed a non-publication order in respect of the respondent’s identity, and neither consented to nor opposed an order regarding his location. It pointed out that under s280(d) of the Act I must take account that the respondent has breached the existing supervision order on eight occasions, with the last one for drug use in 2024. Without seeking to downplay the seriousness of the breaches, and while I must take account of the breaches, it is not clear to me how I should take account of them. Even if the breaches were a factor against making a non-publication order, the critical fact I had to consider was whether it would be in the public interest to make a non-publication order.
37Dr Raymond gave evidence at the hearing that publication of the respondent’s identity and location would likely disengage him from supports, adversely affecting his rehabilitation, and would likely increase his risk of committing a serious sexual offence.
38The overriding purpose of a supervision order is the safety and protection of the community and that purpose could be undermined with publication of the respondent’s identity and location. I made a non-publication order in condition 7 as it was in the public interest for the order to be made.
ANNEXURE A
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
THE SUPERVISION ORDER made on 1 August 2012 is confirmed pursuant to section 106(4) of the Act.
THE REMAINING PERIOD of the order is until 15 November 2027.
CONDITIONS OF THE SUPERVISION ORDER
The Court orders that the conditions of the Supervision Order, as amended pursuant to section 106(5) of the Act, are as follows:
CORE CONDITIONS:
Pursuant to section 31 of the Act, the core conditions of this order are that, during the period of the order:
4.1[THE RESPONDENT] must not commit a serious sex offence in Victoria or elsewhere;
4.2[THE RESPONDENT] must not commit a serious violence offence in Victoria or elsewhere;
4.3[THE RESPONDENT] must not commit an offence referred to in Schedule 3 of the Act in Victoria or elsewhere;
4.4if the court requires [THE RESPONDENT] to reside at a residential facility or the Post Sentence Authority directs [THE RESPONDENT] to reside at a residential facility, [THE RESPONDENT] 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;
4.5if the court requires [THE RESPONDENT] to reside at a residential facility or the Post Sentence Authority directs [THE RESPONDENT] to reside at a residential facility, [THE RESPONDENT] must obey all instructions given by a supervision officer or a specified officer under section 183 of the Act;
4.6if the court requires [THE RESPONDENT] to reside at a residential treatment facility, [THE RESPONDENT] 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;
4.7if the court requires [THE RESPONDENT] to reside at a residential treatment facility, [THE RESPONDENT] must obey all instructions given by a supervision officer or a specified officer under section 183 of the Act;
4.8[THE RESPONDENT] must not engage in any behaviour or conduct that threatens the safety of any person (including [THE RESPONDENT]);
4.9[THE RESPONDENT] must attend at any place directed by the Post Sentence Authority for the purpose of administering the conditions of the order;
4.10[THE RESPONDENT] 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 the order);
4.11[THE RESPONDENT] 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;
4.12[THE RESPONDENT] 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;
4.13[THE RESPONDENT] must not leave Victoria except with the permission of the Post Sentence Authority granted either generally or in relation to a particular case;
4.14[THE RESPONDENT] must comply with a direction given by the Post Sentence Authority under the emergency power in section 142 of the Act; and
4.15[THE RESPONDENT] must obey all instructions given by a community corrections officer or a specified officer under section 209 of the Act.
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS UNDER SECTION 34, SECTION 35, SECTION 37 AND SECTION 38 OF THE ACT:
Pursuant to section 34, section 35, section 37 and section 38 of the Act, the following conditions apply to the Supervision Order:
5.1[THE RESPONDENT] must reside each night at [supported accommodation] or where otherwise directed by the Post Sentence Authority (Residence).
5.2[THE RESPONDENT] must be present at the Residence between 10:00pm and 7:00am unless otherwise directed by the Post Sentence Authority.
5.3[THE RESPONDENT] must not leave and/or be absent from the Residence except in the company of a person approved by:
(a)a General Manager of Community Correctional Services; or
(b)if directed to reside at a residential facility within the meaning of the Act, the General Manager of the residential facility,
unless otherwise directed by the Post Sentence Authority.
5.4[THE RESPONDENT] must:
(a)attend for assessment for treatment or rehabilitation programs or activities; and
(b)participate in such programs or activities
as instructed by a supervision officer.
5.5[THE RESPONDENT] must not consume alcohol except in accordance with the written directions of the Post Sentence Authority.
5.6[THE RESPONDENT] must not use or possess prohibited drugs (including synthetic drugs), obtain drugs unlawfully or abuse drugs of any kind.
5.7[THE RESPONDENT] must submit to breath testing, urinalysis or other test procedures (other than blood tests) approved by the Secretary or the Chief Commissioner of Police as the case may be for the detection of alcohol or drug use, at the direction of:
(a)an officer who has reasonable grounds to suspect that [THE RESPONDENT] has breached condition 5.5 and/or 5.6 of the Supervision Order by consuming alcohol and/or drugs, or
(b)in the event that [THE RESPONDENT] is not residing at a residential facility or residential treatment facility, a police officer who has reasonable grounds to suspect that [THE RESPONDENT] has breached conditions 5.5 and/or 5.6 of the Supervision Order by consuming alcohol and/or drugs.
5.8[THE RESPONDENT] must not knowingly have any contact with:
(a)the victims of any sexual or violent offences committed by him; or
(b)the families of those victims; including:
(i)any form of physical contact;
(ii)any form of oral communication (whether face to face, by telephone or by use of the internet); or
(iii)any form of written communication (whether electronic or otherwise);
except for contact in accordance with the written directions of the Post Sentence Authority.
5.9[THE RESPONDENT] 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 Act, [THE RESPONDENT] must:
(a)comply with any direction given by the Post Sentence Authority relating to the electronic monitoring;
(b)for 24 hours of each day be electronically monitored and wear an electronic monitoring device fitted to [THE RESPONDENT];
(c)ensure that the electronic monitoring device fitted to [THE RESPONDENT] remains operational (including being charged) at all times;
(d)not tamper with, damage, disable or remove any electronic monitoring device or equipment used for the electronic monitoring; and
(e)accept any visit by the Secretary or her agents to the place where [THE RESPONDENT] 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.
5.10[THE RESPONDENT] must not contravene the Control of Weapons Act 1990 (Vic).
OTHER ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS UNDER SECTION 36 OF THE ACT:
Pursuant to section 36 of the Act, the following conditions apply to the Supervision Order:
6.1Pursuant to section 36(1) of the Act, the Post Sentence Authority is authorised to give directions to [THE RESPONDENT] in relation to the operation of any condition of this supervision order;
6.2Pursuant to sections 36(1) and 36(2)(a) of the Act, the Post Sentence Authority is authorised to give a direction to [THE RESPONDENT] that he is to reside at a residential facility;
6.3Pursuant to section 36(4) of the Act, the Post Sentence Authority is authorised to give [THE RESPONDENT] directions relating to any of the following:
(a)the times at which [THE RESPONDENT] must be at the residential facility;
(b)the circumstances under which [THE RESPONDENT] may leave the residential facility; and
(c)the monitoring (including electronic monitoring) of his compliance with a direction that he reside at the residential facility.
6.4Pursuant to section 36(7) of the Act, [THE RESPONDENT] must comply with any direction given under an authorisation referred to in section 36 of the Act.
OTHER ORDERS
Pursuant 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 this proceeding under the Act that might enable [THE RESPONDENT] or his location to be identified must not be published until—
7.1the next review of the supervision order is heard and determined;
7.2the expiry or revocation of the Supervision Order; or
7.3further order of the Court—
whichever occurs earlier.
0
3
0