Fagan J granted an interim supervision order and appointed experts under ss 7(4) and 10A of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 but refused a substantial number of the 62 conditions proposed by the State, including curfew, weekly scheduling of movements, alcohol and drug prohibitions, employment restrictions, warrantless search powers, and restrictions on changes of appearance. The Court held that each condition must have a demonstrated connection to the specific risk of the defendant committing further serious sexual offences, and that conditions which would criminalise conduct lawful for other citizens — exposing the defendant to a five-year penalty under s 11 — require particular justification given the absence of graduated penalties. The Court also held that conditions must be workable and proportionate, and must not effectively set a defendant with known cognitive limitations up to fail.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 7 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 7 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.