The Court found the respondent to be a high risk serious offender under the HRSO Act and imposed a continuing detention order rather than a supervision order. The Court held it was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the respondent would substantially comply with the standard conditions of a supervision order, given his entrenched history of breaching supervision orders, repeated reoffending while subject to the interim supervision order, significant outstanding treatment needs, and only very recent and untested willingness to engage in counselling. The Court emphasised that 'substantial compliance' under s 29 requires compliance sufficient to enable the supervision order to achieve its statutory object of adequate community protection, and that the respondent's failure to engage meaningfully with recommended treatment over several years meant he lacked the capacity to comply, notwithstanding recent attitudinal shifts.
The full text is available to signed-in members.