The court's discretion under the DSO Act between continuing detention and supervision becomes illusory where the State fails to provide suitable accommodation and inter-agency cooperation necessary for a supervision order. The paramount consideration of community protection compels continued detention even where the offender is otherwise suitable for supervised release, but the State's failure to facilitate that release may raise questions about the constitutional validity of the regime if periodic reviews become mere formalities. Electronic monitoring alone is insufficient without structured accommodation and multi-disciplinary support.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 13 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 13 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.