Mulhall v The Queen

[2016] NTSC 25

Supreme Court of the Northern Territory

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

1. Serious Sex Offenders Act
2. › whether appropriate to revoke a final supervision order
3. › the Court must revoke the order unless ‘satisfied it would not be appropriate to do so’ - preventive and protective purpose of the Serious Sex Offenders Act
4. › cumulative effect of the contraventions
5. › respondent’s low level of insight
6. › current risks cannot be appropriately managed under the final supervision order
7. › final continuing detention order imposed
1. Serious Sex Offenders Act s 9, s 14 (2) (3), s 46 (1), s 49 (1)(b), s 51, s 52, s 58 (b) (ii), s 60, s 62 (2)(a), s 63 (2)(a), s 79, s 88.
1. Attorney General of the Northern Territory v EE [2013] NTSC 35; (2013) 33 NTLR 102; Attorney General of the Northern Territory v EE (no 2) (2013) 280 FLR 35; The Attorney General of the Northern Territory v EE [2014] NTCA 1; The Queen v EE, 29 November 2012, Riley CJ, referred to.