When deciding under s 13(5) of the DPSOA whether adequate protection of the community can be managed by a supervision order, the court must consider the specific terms of the proposed supervision order, the statutory scheme for dealing with contraventions under s 22 (including the possibility of return to custody and amendment of the order), and the consequent motivations for the prisoner to comply. The court must not be distracted by psychiatrists' preferences for therapeutic treatment from the statutory task of assessing whether a supervision order can ensure adequate protection. The respondent Attorney-General's failure to put forward a draft supervision order does not relieve the court of the obligation to consider the terms of any proposed order.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 12 later cases that cite this judgment.
4 of the 12 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.