STATE PREVENTS RESPONDENT WITH EXTENSIVE CRIMINAL RECORDS FROM BEING RELEASED
THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- COX AKA ROE [2020] WASC 344 (24 September 2020)
This case involves an application for restriction order under the High-Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 filed by the state against the respondent who was due for release 5 days after the effectivity of the act which prevents high risk offenders from being released.
Facts:
- The operative provisions of the High-Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) were proclaimed to come into operation on 26 August 2020. The respondent was due for release, having completed serving his sentence of imprisonment on 31 August 2020.
- The Act provides for the making of restriction orders for the continuing detention or supervision of offenders after the completion of their sentence. The State may apply to the Supreme Court for a restriction order in relation to a 'serious offender'.
- On 26 August 2020, the State of Western Australia filed an application for a restriction order in relation to the respondent, pursuant to s35 and s46 of the Act.
- The respondent has an extensive criminal record from 1996, after he reached the age of 18. He was first sentenced to imprisonment in 1998 and has been sentenced to imprisonment on several occasions since. The respondent was convicted of his first serious offence in 2007, and including that occasion, he has been convicted three times for serious offences.
- The state adduced evidence such as: sentencing remarks on the sentencing for each of three serious offences for which the respondent was convicted, statement of material facts for offences committed between 1996 and 2017, psychological reports, offender program reports etc.
Issue: Are there reasonable grounds for belief that the order must be made?
Law:
- Section 46, read with s 84 and s 7, provides for the evidence on which the court may act in a restriction order proceeding. Although s 84(3) refers to the court acting on admissible evidence, s 84(4) and s 84(5) modify the rules of evidence to allow the court to receive into evidence material including 'any document relevant to the antecedents' of the offender; and any medical, psychiatric, psychological or other assessment relating to the offender; and any information indicating whether or not the offender has a propensity to commit serious offences in the future.
Analysis:
There is sufficient material before the court to form the belief ‑ particularly in the light of the fact that there will be further reports prepared for the purposes of the hearing ‑ that a judge might find that the respondent is a high-risk serious offender.
That is the threshold that needs to be met, and, on the basis of all of the material to which the court referred, it is satisfied that it has been, and believes that such an order might be made.
Conclusion: There are reasonable grounds for the approval of the application for the restriction order.
