› where objects of Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 are adequate protection of the community and rehabilitation of the offender
› whether the Respondent erred in law in regarding the protection of the community as the paramount consideration in directing curfew and electronic monitoring
Administrative Law
› JUDICIAL REVIEW
› GROUNDS OF REVIEW
› UNREASONABLENESS
› whether the Respondent’s exercise of the discretionary power was so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have so exercised it
› whether the Respondent had a plausible justification
Administrative Law
› JUDICIAL REVIEW
› GROUNDS OF REVIEW
› RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS
› where the Applicant’s offending occurred in particular domestic contexts
› where the Applicant had not re-offended
› where psychiatrists were of the opinion that there was no justification for imposing either a curfew or electronic monitoring
› whether the respondent took all relevant considerations into account
Administrative Law
› JUDICIAL REVIEW
› GROUNDS OF REVIEW
› IRRELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS
› where the Respondent appeared to be uncooperative and hostile towards corrective services officers
› whether the Respondent took irrelevant considerations into account
