When a primary judge on an annual review under s 27 of the DPSOA is faced with conflicting psychiatric evidence as to the risk of reoffending and the likelihood of compliance with a supervision order, the judge must engage with the inconsistencies in the evidence, explain why one opinion is preferred over another or why the differences are not significant, and explain how the cumulative weight of factors relied upon overwhelms the contrary evidence. A bare conclusion that the differences between psychiatrists' opinions are 'not that significant' is insufficient where the evidence does not support that characterisation. The onus on an annual review lies on the Attorney-General to show that continuing detention should be preferred over supervision, which is different from the onus that applies where a prisoner has breached a supervision order.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 39 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 39 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.