The test of 'unacceptable risk' under s 9(1) of the Serious Sex Offenders (Detention and Supervision) Act 2009 (Vic) depends on both the degree of likelihood of offending and the seriousness of consequences, proved to a high degree of probability by acceptable and cogent evidence. The risk need not be more likely than not. On appeal under s 96, the finding of unacceptable risk is reviewed on a 'plainly wrong' standard, while the discretionary decision to make a supervision order and its terms attract House v The King principles. The Charter does not require an implied limitation on the s 9(7) discretion, but s 15(6) mandates that additional conditions constitute the minimum interference with human rights. Conditions that are unreasonably wide, uncertain, or lack a rational connection to the identified risk will be set aside.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 120 later cases that cite this judgment.
15 of the 120 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.