The Court held that while it was open to the Magistrate to find a reasonable suspicion of future abuse under s 6(a) of the Intervention Orders (Prevention of Abuse) Act 2009 (SA), the Magistrate erred in finding it 'appropriate' under s 6(b) to confirm the intervention order against a defendant with an intellectual disability so extreme (bottom 0.1% of the population, emotional development of a 1.5–3 year old child) that he had no prospect of understanding the order even at a basic level, where compliance would fall entirely on carers not bound by the order and where existing licence conditions under the CLCA already provided a protective mechanism capable of variation. The Court also adopted the position of Kourakis CJ in Teague v SL that confirmation of a final intervention order is a final order, not interlocutory, meaning appeals lie as of right under s 40 of the Magistrates Court Act 1991 (SA) without requiring permission under r 213.1(1)(a) of the Uniform Civil Rules 2020 (SA).
The full text is available to signed-in members.