The Court refused a permanent stay of extended detention order proceedings, holding that where mandatory medical reports under s 57(6) of the Sentencing Act have not yet been obtained, it is premature and speculative to conclude the application is foredoomed to fail, particularly where the respondent concedes an appreciable risk sufficient to warrant an interim supervision order. The Court declined to make an interim detention order, finding that while there was a real question to be tried as to whether the respondent was unwilling to control his sexual instincts, the material before the Court established only a possibility rather than a significant risk or good chance of re-offending, such that the risk could be adequately managed by an ISO. The Court imposed an ISO with six months of intensive home detention supervision and internet usage restrictions, finding these conditions warranted given the respondent's demonstrated prior ability to offend and conceal offending and the increased risk associated with reintegration after 25 years in custody.
The full text is available to signed-in members.