3 Dec 2021
The application for recall is dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate the requisite "very special reason"; the alleged mischaracterisation of counsel's argument did not create prospects of success sufficient to alter the prior outcome and, even as refined, would not have changed the decision on interpretation of s 107IAA(1)(d).
31 Aug 2021
The court held that a late-filed health assessor's report did not automatically bar review or confirmation of an ESO because s 379 Criminal Procedure Act saves proceedings from being invalidated for want of form absent a miscarriage of justice; the court must have a health assessor's report to undertake the review and make its s 107IAA risk determinations; on the evidence (including Mr Carlyon's report) the respondent satisfied the statutory risk criteria and posed a high risk of committing a relevant sexual offence within the remaining term of the ESO, and in the exercise of its discretion t…
21 Jun 2021
The Court allowed the appeal because the Judge erred in finding the mandatory s107I(2)(a) criterion satisfied: two of the charged indecent assaults (1989 and 2009) were not 'serious sexual offending' and three convictions for serious sexual offending spread over 25 years do not constitute a pervasive pattern; the appellant's overall criminality is dominated by non-sexual offending and the unproven charges did not add gravity; accordingly the ESO could not be sustained and was set aside.
11 Jun 2021
The High Court was satisfied on the health assessors' reports and actuarial tools that the respondent has a pervasive pattern of serious sexual offending and meets the mandatory criteria in s107IAA such that there is a high risk of future relevant sexual offending; accordingly an ESO for the minimum required period of 10 years (commencing 26 December 2020) was necessary for community safety and an intensive monitoring condition for 12 months from the sentence release date was imposed.
28 Mar 2018
The Court independently accepted the assessors' findings that Mr E has a pervasive pattern of serious sexual offending and meets the s 107IAA criteria (sexual preoccupation, predilection, limited self‑regulation, absence of meaningful understanding of harm), poses a high risk of reoffending against children, and therefore a ten‑year extended supervision order with standard conditions and interim special conditions is necessary and proportionate to protect the community.
20 Oct 2017
On the evidence and individualized assessment the respondent satisfied statutory criteria: pervasive pattern, predilection, current display of an intense drive, limited self-regulatory capacity and an absence of understanding/concern for victims; those factors establish a high risk of future relevant sexual offending while socially isolated or given opportunity. A three-year ESO is the minimum proportionate term required for community safety in light of the risk, seriousness of potential harm and likely duration of risk, consistent with the Bill of Rights. Three interim special conditions (GP…
25 May 2017
The Court found on the evidence and the health assessor's report that the respondent has a pervasive pattern of serious sexual offending and satisfies the s 107IAA criteria (intense sexual drive, predilection/proclivity, limited self-regulation, incomplete acceptance of responsibility and limited understanding of victim harm), such that there is a high risk of future relevant sexual offending; accordingly an extended supervision order for the maximum permissible period of 10 years was necessary for community safety.
28 Sept 2016
The Court of Appeal held that 'displays' in s 107IAA requires the offender to presently possess the specified traits but does not require external manifestation to the public; a court may infer the persistence of those traits from historical offending, expert reports and the offender's denial or refusal to engage in treatment, and on that basis an ESO was justified and ordered for six years.