The Court found the respondent to be a high risk serious offender under s 7(1) of the HRSO Act but determined that a supervision order, rather than a continuing detention order, was the least invasive restriction adequate to protect the community. The Court imposed a four-year supervision order with extensive conditions including electronic monitoring, curfew, prohibition on contact with children, alcohol and drug prohibitions, and device monitoring, but declined to impose a condition prohibiting possession of images of children, holding it was neither necessary nor appropriate where there was no evidence of involvement in exploitative imagery and existing device monitoring conditions were sufficient.
The full text is available to signed-in members.