The State of Western Australia v Sandon [No 3]

Case

[2023] WASC 148


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
The State of Western Australia v Sandon [No 3] [2023] WASC 148 [2023] WASC 148

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of Western Australia considered an application by the State of Western Australia to impose a restriction order on Mathew John Sandon under the High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA). Sandon had an extensive criminal record, including convictions for aggravated robbery and other violent offences. The State sought a supervision order to ensure adequate protection of the community against the risk that Sandon would commit further serious offences. The court heard expert evidence from Dr Edward Petch, a Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist, and Ms Julie Hasson, a Forensic Psychologist, among others. The experts assessed Sandon as a high risk of committing serious violent offences due to his untreated ADHD, substance use disorder, and personality disorders. The court found Sandon to be a high-risk serious offender and determined that he would substantially comply with the standard conditions of a supervision order. The court imposed a supervision order for a period of two years, effective from 31 May 2023, with additional conditions to ensure the protection of the community.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Criminal Law

Legal Concepts

  • High Risk Serious Offenders

  • Jurisdiction

  • Unjust Enrichment

  • Restraint of Trade

  • Fiduciary Duty

  • Constructive Trust

  • Equitable Estoppel

  • Breach of Trust

  • Undue Influence

  • Breach of Confidence

  • Criminal Liability

  • Mens Rea & Intention

  • Consent

  • Self-Defence

  • Duress & Necessity

  • Judicial Review

  • Natural Justice & Procedural Fairness

  • Legitimate Expectation

  • Proportionality

  • Constitutional Validity

  • Separation of Powers

  • Statutory Construction

  • Adverse Possession

  • Easements & Covenants

  • Native Title

  • Mortgages & Security Interests

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

10

Cases Cited

19

Statutory Material Cited

0