The Court declined to make an interim detention order under s 57(5) of the Sentencing Act 2017 (SA), holding that while there was a real question to be tried as to whether the respondent was incapable of controlling or unwilling to control his sexual instincts, the material did not establish a significant or substantial risk of re-offending sufficient to justify detention. The Court articulated a two-limb test for interim detention orders: first, whether there is a real question to be tried as to the making of a continuing detention order; and second, whether the discretion favours interim detention having regard to the apparent strength of the case, practical consequences, and interests of justice. On the facts, the respondent's engagement in rehabilitation programs, individual counselling, and available community supports meant the risk could be adequately addressed by strict interim supervision order conditions including electronic monitoring and internet restrictions.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.
1 of the 1 citing case carries a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.