The two-stage evaluation for making an ECO under s 110(3) of the CLMI Act mirrors the HRSO Act framework: first, whether there is an unacceptable risk of serious offending; second, whether an ECO is necessary for adequate community protection. The assessment of whether a person will 'commit a serious offence' does not require that the person have criminal responsibility — it is assessed by reference to the act or omission alone. The limiting term for an ECO should be no longer than necessary to achieve adequate protection. The standard of 'high degree of probability' is intermediate between the civil and criminal standards. The principle in s 7(2)(e) that outcomes should not be more severe than if convicted yields to the paramount consideration of community protection but still informs the necessity assessment.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 12 later cases that cite this judgment.
7 of the 12 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.