The Attorney-General of the Northern Territory v JD (No 5)
[2021] NTSC 76
•30 September 2021
CITATION:The Attorney-General of the Northern Territory v JD (No 5) [2021] NTSC 76
PARTIES:THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
v
JD
TITLE OF COURT: SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION: SUPREME COURT exercising Territory Jurisdiction
FILE NO:36 of 2015 (21518615)
DELIVERED: 30 September 2021
HEARING DATES: 31 January 2020, 7 February 2020, 30 April 2020, 18 June 2020, 15-17 July 2020
JUDGMENT OF: Barr J
CATCHWORDS:
SERIOUS SEX OFFENDERS – CONTINUING DETENTION ORDERS – FINAL SUPERVISION ORDERS – Review – Assessment as to whether respondent is still a ‘serious danger to the community’– Current best practice for risk assessment – ‘structured professional judgment’ – Still unacceptable risk that the respondent would commit a serious sex offence unless in custody or subject to a supervision order – Reasonably practicable for the Commissioner of Correctional Services to ensure that respondent appropriately managed and supervised – Held that adequate protection of victims, potential victims and members of the community generally could reasonably be provided by making a final supervision order – Final supervision order made for a period of five years
Serious Sex Offenders Act 2013 s 6(1), s 6(2), s 7(1), s 9(2)(b), s 14(3)(b) & (c), s 31, s 63, s 65, s 69, s 70, s 71(1)(b), s 79, s 88(3)
The Attorney-General of the Northern Territory v JD (No 3) [2017] NTSC 48; The Attorney-General of the Northern Territory v JD (No 4) [2019] NTSC 82, referred to
Nigro v Secretary to the Department of Justice [2013] VSCA 213, 41 VR 259; JD v Attorney-General of the Northern Territory [2020] NTCA 11, applied
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Applicant:T Anderson
Defendant:M Thomas
Solicitors:
Applicant:Solicitor for the Northern Territory
Defendant:Not applicable
Judgment category classification: B
Judgment ID Number: Bar2108
Number of pages: 17
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWINThe Attorney-General of the Northern Territory v JD (No 5)
[2021] NTSC 76
No. 36 of 2015 (21518615)
BETWEEN:
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
Applicant
AND:
JD
Respondent
CORAM: BARR J
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 30 September 2021)
On 17 July 2020, I made orders pursuant to s 71(1)(b) Serious Sex Offenders Act 2013 revoking (with effect from 27 July 2020) the continuing detention order made by this Court on 3 December 2015 and making the respondent subject to a final supervision order for a period of five years from 27 July 2020. I now publish my reasons.
On 22 January 2020, the applicant applied for a review of the final continuing detention order made on 3 December 2015 pursuant to s 31 Serious Sex Offenders Act 2013 (“the Act”). The application for review was made within the amended review period specified in the Court’s order made 1 February 2019, following an earlier review.[1]
On 31 January 2020, the Court made a medical assessment order for the purposes of the review, pursuant to s 70(2) (read with s 79) of the Act, nominating Dr Danny Sullivan, Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist. Dr Sullivan was familiar with the respondent, having met with him in person in February 2017 for the purposes of an earlier court-ordered assessment;[2] and having interviewed and assessed him again on 20 July 2018 for another court ordered assessment.[3]
Dr Sullivan interviewed and assessed the respondent, by means of a
35-minute video conference on 6 March 2020. The interview took place without an interpreter present. Dr Sullivan had flown to Darwin on 22 February 2020 to interview the respondent in person, but his flight was delayed, with the result that he arrived late at the Darwin Correctional Centre and was refused entry. While I have not inquired into the circumstances, I consider that it is regrettable that arrangements could not have been made for the court-ordered examination to be carried out when Dr Sullivan was in Darwin.
At the time of the assessment on 6 March 2020, the respondent was described as restless, but not irritable or hostile. His speech was repetitive and perseverative. He repeatedly spoke of such themes as his long detention in prison and his current and recent good behaviour. In Dr Sullivan’s assessment, the respondent appeared to function in the range of mild cognitive impairment, but had sufficient insight to understand the link between his behaviour and progress on orders.
In his report, Dr Sullivan summarised or extracted information contained in a “Summary of Progress” document, started in January 2016. The document contained notes of the respondent’s behaviour, statements made by him, participation in a sex offender treatment program, work activities, health complaints, participation in a plan for his transition to the community, and the recreational activities in which he engaged. It is not necessary to reproduce that summary. However, relevant to the review, Dr Sullivan provided the following summary of an interim report in relation to the respondent’s participation in sex offender treatment:[4]
An individual interim treatment report prepared by Rosemary O’Reilly-Martinez was not dated but appeared to have been completed in late 2019. Mr D was noted to exhibit psychomotor agitation and facial touching, which appeared to be self-soothing. Also noted was that he tended to put margarine in his hair when anxious. He underwent 15 individual sessions over 2018 and 2019. It was considered that he had made significant gains in his ability to manage his affect, reflect on his feelings and exhibit consequential thinking skills. His motivation was considered to be seeking release. … he was noted to make some efforts to address offending risk factors. He was also noted to exhibit appropriate anxiety about practical issues. He was considered, nevertheless, to remain at high risk of reoffending in the community and would potentially benefit from ongoing psychological treatment focused on maintenance of functioning and continued monitoring of mental state. A further interim report, dated 17 January 2020, noted his engagement in treatment and a further eight individual sessions following the previous report. He noted his focus on “doing everything right”.
Dr Sullivan also reviewed the respondent’s medical notes:[5]
Medical notes were reviewed. These noted that on 13 December 2019 there was a focus on fluid restriction of 2 to 3 L per day due to polydipsia and consequent hyponatraemia. Medical problems included the following: anaemia and iron deficiency; hyponatraemia; neck pain; tardive dyskinesia; dystonia; chronic kidney disease; cardiovascular risk; mastoidectomy; tonic-clonic seizure; coronary artery stents; ischaemic heart disease; type 2 diabetes; hypertension; dyslipidaemia; and in 2010, psychosis and oesophagitis.
Current medications included for cardiovascular health (ramipril, atenolol, aspirin), omeprazole (for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease), metformin (for diabetes), magnesium, Gastrogel, Panadol Osteo and baclofen (a medication used for spasticity and muscle spasms) twice daily from 14 May 2019.
Dr Sullivan ultimately concluded that the respondent “would be at high risk of committing another serious sex offence if not detained in custody or subject to a supervision order”.[6] His opinion relied on structured professional judgment. Dr Sullivan acknowledged that his assessment was limited by the respondent’s protracted incarceration, as well as the inherent limitations of risk assessment. As Dr Sullivan explained, the respondent had not been tested in any situations which would require him to manage his risk of sexual offending outside prison. Dr Sullivan identified an additional limitation, namely that although the respondent co-operated with Dr Sullivan’s assessment, he provided only “limited useful insight” into his mental state.
Dr Sullivan’s ultimate conclusion followed a very useful summary of the respondent’s impairments and disorders, current physical health and general behaviour. Dr Sullivan also explained the methodology of his risk assessment. It is appropriate that I set out those parts of his report in full:
Opinion and Recommendations
[20] Mr D is a 50 year-old single indigenous man from west of Darwin, who has been incarcerated since his mid-thirties for sexual offences, and is now detained under the Serious Sex Offenders Act 2013. He has an established background of learning and emotional difficulties manifest from childhood. He has spent much of his life incarcerated for a range of crimes, including acquisitive, sexual and violent offences.
[21] He has a mild cognitive impairment which has been corroborated by neuropsychological assessment. It is unclear whether this was congenital, acquired through alcohol abuse or brain trauma, or multifactorial. In any event, he functions adequately in a supported environment and may be able to progress to some independent functioning in a community setting, although the degree remains to be determined. Of note, there are suggestions of frontal lobe or executive dysfunction, with perseveration, rigidity of thinking and difficulty set-shifting.
[22] Mr D meets criteria for a severe mixed personality disorder with antisocial and paranoid traits. As previously noted, he is impulsive, lacks planning or life goals, and has marked interpersonal difficulties manifest in suspiciousness, hostility and aggression, little capacity or inclination in forming relationships, externalisation of responsibility, and self-referential thinking. Over the last couple of years there has been some attenuation of his problematic interpersonal interactions. This appears to be associated with Mr D isolating himself more from others and is mainly apparent in reduced interpersonal conflict and aggression.
[23] Currently there is no evidence of psychotic symptoms, such as delusional beliefs or hallucinatory experiences. Although his behaviour suggests intermittent anxiety related to his context, this is not marked or problematic. Nevertheless, anxiety may underly some of his reluctance to engage in work or educational activities, and be reflected in his withdrawal from others as well as his unusual mannerisms. I also considered whether these reflect neurological symptoms such as dyskinesia but they do not appear consistent with a neurological disorder.
[24] There is no current indication of depressive symptoms.
[25] His physical health appears stable although he has several underlying serious conditions and an apparent musculoskeletal disorder which may impair his ability to work (although it is also possible that this is mild but is used by Mr D to excuse himself from activity he does not wish to do). Although there is mention of a seizure disorder, there is no indication in the notes that he has had any seizures in recent years, and he is not prescribed any anti-epileptic drugs (although baclofen may have minor activity [sic] reducing liability to seizures). Furthermore, Mr D is not prescribed any psychotropic drugs such as antidepressant or antipsychotic medication.
[26] His behaviour has been settled, by comparison to his earlier prison conduct. It appears that this relates to the structure and incentives of his transition plan, stability and an appropriate accommodation and classification within the prison, and his own motivation to behave in order to be released from prison. In addition, it is likely that Mr D is effectively using basic strategies he has learnt, to reduce the potential for conflict, predominantly avoidance, but also engaging in meaningful occupation to address boredom and anxiety.
[27] There has been no indication of sexualised behaviour of concern in recent years. Nevertheless it remains difficult to predict how effectively Mr D will manage himself in the community. There is some evidence that he has acquired some skills to reduce the likelihood of problematic sexual behaviour, although this will rely on his motivation and capacity to use these in real-life contexts. It is also likely that ageing and stabilisation of his mental state has reduced his risk level, although it is not possible to determine the magnitude of these impacts. It is likely that in line with a reduction in aggression and involvement in conflict and prison incidents, his risk of impulsive sexual offending may have also reduced. [underline emphasis added]
[28] There is a past history of alcohol abuse and of offending while intoxicated. There is little information about other substance use, including cannabis. Mr D has been deprived of access to alcohol and other drugs for many years when incarcerated, and consequently it is difficult to tell of his proclivity to return to drinking or indeed engage in other substance abuse.
Risk assessment
[29] The methodology of risk assessment remains unchanged, acknowledging potential difficulties in relying on risk assessment tools which have not been specifically validated in Northern Territory Aboriginal men.
[30] Mr D continues to score in the high risk category on the STATIC-99. The risk of recidivism for people in this category is higher than that expected of others convicted of sexual offences: of the reference group, 39% were re-convicted for sexual offending and 44% for violence offending at five years after release, and at fifteen years, 52% had re-offended sexually and 59% violently. The STATIC-99 scores will not change significantly due to their reliance on relatively fixed and historical variables.
[31] I once more reviewed the RSVP (Risk for Sexual Violence Protocol), a structured professional judgment instrument which incorporates both static and dynamic risk variables associated with sexual re-offending. The RSVP is one of the most robust predictors of sexual re-offending risk. The RSVP categorises 22 items into five domains. These are scored for past evidence and recent evidence (in the last year).
[32] His scores on the RSVP remain unchanged. Recent information while incarcerated is not representative of risk in the community and thus is not relevant to prognostication except as speculation. Past evidence remains unchanged. The RSVP continues to identify a range of past risk factors across all domains.
[33] Taking into account the STATIC-99 and the RSVP, I consider that Mr D’s overall sexual offending risk remains in the high range. This reflects that the anchoring STATIC-99 score is likely to overestimate future risk, which may have attenuated somewhat due to ageing and a change in attitude. However Mr D, due to cognitive impairment, has limited capacity to demonstrate significant learning from therapeutic interventions, and thus reduction in risk is predominately inferred from improved behaviour. Mr D has not had the opportunity to be tested in a community setting.
[34] I have also reviewed the HCR-20 V3, a violence risk assessment tool in its current (third) version. The HCR-20 is a well-validated tool to assess violence risk in adults. His scores again remain unchanged. The Risk Management items are of most relevance to prognosis, but rely on a clearly established management plan which details his accommodation, personal support, activity and external constraints on his behaviour.
Dr Sullivan also gave consideration to release planning for the respondent.[7] He had not been asked to comment on any specific plan, and thus observed that release planning remained uncertain. However, Dr Sullivan stated his opinion that, if released, the respondent should be released into supported accommodation, ideally in the Darwin area where appropriate support services were available. He suggested that supports might be withdrawn gradually, depending on the respondent’s ability to manage living outside the prison. Dr Sullivan also recommended electronic monitoring to ensure the respondent’s adherence to conditions. He suggested that, because of the respondent’s cognitive impairment, only brief sanctions should be imposed in the event of minor breaches of conditions “if these are not … associated with or predisposing to increased risk”. Dr Sullivan stated that, although there was no indication that the respondent would require ongoing psychiatric follow-up or psychiatric medication, he would require “ongoing therapeutic input to consolidate earlier learning”, to be provided by a psychologist.
For the purposes of the review, the Commissioner was required by s 88(3) Serious Sex Offenders Act 2013 to provide a written report setting out his opinion as to whether, if a supervision order were made in relation to the respondent, it would be reasonably practicable to ensure that the respondent “was appropriately managed and supervised as mentioned in section 63 [of the Act]”. A very comprehensive supervision report under the hand of the Commissioner of Correctional Services was tendered at the hearing.
The respondent’s prisoner classification at the time of the review was ‘Low Restricted’, a security rating which he had maintained since May 2019. His last serious security breach had been March 2018, and since that time (including for the duration of the review period), he had recorded only minor incidents, which had been managed within his sector.
The respondent was housed in the medium security accommodation sector, in a ‘low stimulus’ environment. A link had been detected between stimulation in the environment and increased stress on the part of the respondent. The ‘low stimulus’ environment was said to have “critically aided” the respondent in the reduction of possible conflicts, aggressive behaviour and other incidents.
In August 2019, the respondent had undertaken a four-week Cooking Skills Program to provide basic skills in food preparation and hygiene. He progressed to the group Cooking Skills Program, engaging well and interacting with other prisoners both in food preparation and cleaning tasks.
The Commissioner noted that the responded had successful transitioned through the Transition Plan, to the final stage.[8]
In relation to reintegration planning for the respondent, the Commissioner referred to the difficulties in finding stable and suitable accommodation for persons subject to supervision orders under the Act. Although the respondent had expressed the wish to ultimately live in his own private accommodation, he had been unable to identify any suitable accommodation options during the period of assessment. The respondent hails from Wadeye, but in consultations conducted by the Commissioner’s staff, the respondent’s father and members of his family had expressed the view that Wadeye was not a suitable place for the respondent to live.
In spite of the challenges, Northern Territory Correctional Services worked closely with the organizations Life Without Barriers, Eunoia Lane and the Public Guardian to identify accommodation which was appropriate to meet the respondent’s complex needs. A privately leased residence in Girraween was identified, assessed and found suitable. The house was on a large rural block and well away from potentially high risk areas such as schools.
The Commissioner expressed his belief that the respondent’s needs and risk could be met if he were living at the Girraween property in the care of, and with the assistance of support of Life Without Barriers.[9] It was apparent from the Commissioner’s very comprehensive supervision report that he well understood that the risk of the respondent committing a serious sex offence could be better managed if he were in stable and supported accommodation, based on advice previously given by Dr Sullivan.
The respondent met the criteria for support under the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), and, through Eunoia Lane, a Specialist Support Co-Ordinator (SSCO) had been assigned to his case. The role of that person was to complete further functional assessments to identify the level of support required by the respondent, and the funding required under the NDIS to provide such support. In late January 2020, the respondent’s SSCO confirmed an agreement in principle with Life Without Barriers to support the respondent in the community, under which live-in carers would be employed at the Girraween accommodation. Support staff from Life Without Barriers then made numerous pre-release support visits to the respondent between February and June 2020, to establish a relationship and build rapport with him.
The respondent’s SSCO had also referred him to a specialist clinical psychologist, who had started to develop a Behaviour Support Plan (BSP), with specific strategies to reduce the occurrence and impact of behaviours of concern. The final BSP had not been completed because of the impact of Covid-19 and the inability of the clinical psychologist to travel from interstate. In any event, it was the view of that psychologist that it would take some six to eight weeks of the respondent living in the community to obtain the necessary information required to complete the BSP.
Because electronic monitoring was recommended by Dr Sullivan as an appropriate condition of any supervision order, Northern Territory Correctional services trained the respondent in maintaining his body worn electronic monitoring device and ensuring it was regularly charged. The respondent had worn the device for approximately three months and demonstrated an adequate ability to charge his device on a regular basis.
The Commissioner set out a number of conditions which, in his opinion, should be included in any supervision order made by this Court, including fixed place of residence, subject to supervision by a Probation and Parole Officer; non-consumption of alcohol and dangerous drugs, with testing; electronic monitoring; non-contact with children under the age of 18; no access to pornography; no internet access other than as may be approved, and compliance with any prescribed medication regime.
On the basis of those suggested conditions, and the availability of suitable accommodation and support as described in [17] – [20], the Commissioner stated his opinion that it would be “reasonably practicable” to ensure that the respondent was “appropriately managed and supervised as required by s 63 of the Act”.
At the conclusion of the review, I was satisfied that the respondent remained a “serious danger to the community”, within the meaning of that term in s 6(1) of the Act, in that there was an unacceptable risk that he would commit a serious sex offence unless he were in custody or subject to a supervision order.
Before deciding that the respondent was a serious danger to the community, I was satisfied to a high degree of probability, as required by s 7(1) of the Act, that there was acceptable and cogent evidence of sufficient weight to justify my decision. On the basis of such evidence, my consideration of the matters specified in s 6(2) of the Act led me to the conclusion that it was likely that the respondent would commit another serious sex offence, with potentially serious impacts on any individual victim and the community.[10]
In considering the likelihood that the respondent would commit another serious sex offence,[11] I accepted the opinion of Dr Danny Sullivan, consultant forensic psychiatrist, that the respondent would be “at high risk of committing another serious sex offence if not detained in custody or subject to a supervision order”.[12]
I accepted Dr Sullivan’s opinion because he is an expert consultant forensic psychiatrist who had conducted careful evaluations of the respondent over several years, and most recently on 6 March 2020. His opinion was based on his high-level expertise in the assessment and treatment of sexual offenders, applied to the respondent, and taking into account the respondent’s history of offending, conduct in prison over many years (including much improved behaviour in recent times), cognitive impairment, severe personality disorder with antisocial and paranoid traits, age, and physical and mental health. Dr Sullivan had utilised standard and usual risk assessment tools, namely Static-99, HCR-20 and RSVP while acknowledging the potential difficulty that they had not been specifically validated in Northern Territory aboriginal men. Moreover, Dr Sullivan had applied his own clinical judgment to take into account dynamic factors including a consideration of how long ago serious sexual offences had been committed; and the respondent’s age, state of health and participation in treatment programs as a serving prisoner.
The evidence of Dr Sullivan constituted “acceptable and cogent evidence of sufficient weight to justify the decision” that the respondent remained a serious danger to the community because of the high risk – an obviously unacceptable risk – that he would commit a serious sex offence unless he remained in custody or were subject to a supervision order. Consequently, I was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that there was an unacceptable risk that the respondent would commit a serious sex offence unless he were in custody or subject to a supervision order.
I went on to consider the evidence through the filter of the more rigid standard of proof referred to in the Victorian Court of Appeal decision in Nigro v Secretary to the Department of Justice,[13] namely proof “to a high degree of probability”, and came to the same conclusion, namely that the respondent was a serious danger to the community within the meaning of s 6(1) of the Act.
Notwithstanding the conclusion reached, I took the view that adequate protection of victims, potential victims and members of the community generally could reasonably be provided by making a final supervision order.[14] I was satisfied that it was no longer the case that adequate protection could only reasonably be provided by means of a continuing detention order.[15] In that respect, I was satisfied that it was reasonably practicable for the Commissioner of Correctional Services to ensure that the respondent was appropriately managed and supervised.[16]
I therefore made the orders set out below, on 17 July 2020:
1. Pursuant to s 71(1)(b) of the Serious Sex Offenders Act (NT) (“the Act”) from 10:00a.m. on 27 July 2020:
a.the continuing detention order made in this matter on 3 December 2015 is revoked;
b.the respondent is subject to a final supervision order for a period of five years from 27 July 2020, which order is subject to the following requirements.
2. Pursuant to s 18 of the Act (the compulsory requirements):
a.the respondent must not commit:
i.a serious sex offence; or
ii.an offence of a sexual nature;
b.the respondent must report to a parole officer as directed by a Probation and Parole officer;
c.the respondent must receive visits and accept communications from a probation and parole officer as directed by a Probation and Parole officer;
d.the respondent must give to a Probation and Parole officer information about his place of residence and place of employment or education as directed by a Probation and Parole officer;
e.the respondent must not leave, or stay out of, the Territory without the permission of a probation and parole officer; and
f.the respondent must comply with any directions given to him by a Probation or Parole officer pursuant to s 20 of the Act.
3. Pursuant to s 18(2) of the Act, there are no matters about which a Probation and Parole officer cannot give directions to the respondent pursuant to s 20 of the Act.
4. Pursuant to s 19 of the Act (the optional requirements):
a.the respondent must reside and remain at a location specified by a Probation and Parole officer, and until otherwise determined, must not leave the premises at any time of the day or night without first obtaining permission from a Probation and Parole officer, except in the case of a personal medical emergency;
b.the respondent must not purchase, possess or consume alcohol or remain in the presence of any person consuming alcohol and must submit to testing as directed by a Probation and Parole officer for the purpose of detecting the presence of alcohol;
c.the respondent must not purchase, possess or consume any dangerous drug or remain in the presence of any person consuming a dangerous drug and must submit to testing as directed by a Probation and Parole officer for the purpose of detecting the presence of any such dangerous drug;
d.the respondent must have attached and wear any monitoring device as directed by Probation and Parole officer;
e.the respondent must allow the placing and installation of anything necessary for the effective operation of any monitoring device he is required to wear;
f.the respondent must comply with the Rules for Electronic Monitoring (to be attached to the orders);
g.the respondent must comply with any direction given by a Probation and Parole officer to participate in any specified rehabilitation, care or treatment, and structured day;
h.the respondent must have no contact with children 18 years of age or under (except in the course of a normal business transaction) except in the presence of an adult who has been approved for the purposes of this order by a Probation and Parole officer;
i.the respondent must not attend or remain within 100 metres of any educational or childcare premises frequented or intended to be frequented by children, including but not limited to playgrounds, playrooms, schools, pre-schools and kindergartens;
j.the respondent must not possess or view any form of pornography;
k.the respondent must permit a Probation and Parole officer to access his place of residence at all times for the purposes of ensuring compliance with the terms of his supervision order and to search for and seize any electronic device and anything he is not permitted to possess;
l.the respondent must not have possession or control of a firearm;
m.the respondent must disclose to a Probation and Parole officer the details of any person who he enters into a relationship with, including the full name of the person;
n.the respondent must not, without a lawful reason, enter any private premises; and
o.the respondent must comply with a medication regime as prescribed by a medical practitioner.
-------------------------
[1]See The Attorney-General of the Northern Territory v JD (No 4) [2019] NTSC 82 at [5], [54] – [55].
[2]The evidence of Dr Sullivan was referred to in The Attorney-General of the Northern Territory v JD (No 3) [2017] NTSC 48 at [9], [10], [15] – [18], [20], [23] – [25], and [31].
[3]See The Attorney-General of the Northern Territory v JD (No 4) [2019] NTSC 82, at [9] – [14], [19] – [20], [30], [31] – [34].
[4]Report Dr Sullivan, 25 March 2020, par [15].
[5]Report Dr Sullivan, 25 March 2020, pars [17] and [18].
[6] Report Dr Sullivan, 25 March 2020, par [40].
[7] Report 25 March 2020, pars [35] – [39].
[8] The seven-stage Transition Plan was discussed in some detail in The Attorney-General of the Northern Territory v JD (No 4) [2019] NTSC 82 at [42], [45] – [50].
[9]Commissioner’s Supervision Report, par 73. Life Without Barriers is a disability service provider organisation.
[10] And hence the need to protect people from such impacts – see s 6(2)(c) of the Act.
[11] See s 6 (2)(a) of the Act.
[12]See [8] above.
[13] Nigro v Secretary to the Department of Justice [2013] VSCA 213; 41 VR 259 at [156]. In JD v Attorney-General of the Northern Territory [2020] NTCA 11 at [41], delivered 31 July 2020, the Northern Territory Court of Appeal held that s 7(1) of the Act required a higher standard of proof than the ordinary civil standard, namely satisfaction “to a high degree of probability that the person is a serious danger to the community”.
[14]See s 9(2)(b) of the Act.
[15]See s 14(3)(c) of the Act.
[16] See s 14(3)(b), read with s 63 of the Act.
0
4
3