Under the Dangerous Sexual Offenders Act 2006 (WA), 'unacceptable risk' in s 7(1) means a real risk of substance, not merely a remote possibility. The word 'may' in s 17(1) does not confer a discretion to make no order at all once the threshold finding is made; the court must choose between a continuing detention order and a supervision order. The court should choose the least invasive option that provides adequate community protection, and should not make a continuing detention order if a supervision order would suffice. The standard of proof is a high degree of probability, not beyond reasonable doubt, though the question of whether s 40 (deeming proceedings to be criminal) affects the standard was left open.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 158 later cases that cite this judgment.
23 of the 158 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.