(c) Whether the detention order should be for a period of 12 months or less
69 The plaintiff submitted that the period of continuing detention should be one year as
"on any view of the psychiatric and psychological evidence, a period of six months would seem to be a minimum; the starting point for any further detention is stabilisation of Mr Hayter on anti-libidinal medication. Then the continuation of the period in CUBIT until such time as the people who conduct CUBIT are satisfied that he is indeed focussing on what CUBIT is all about and then some period of observation after that to ensure that the anti-libidinal medication is having the effect that is desired and that the gains in his outlook that CUBIT hopefully will provide are indeed sustained.
It may be that that can all be achieved in less than a year, it would seem it could not be achieved on less than six months on any view of it, but if one is to err on the side of caution, then the appropriate course would be to take a longer period so that the therapist can be satisfied that all those matters have been satisfied."
70 The plaintiff submitted that
"supervision will be sufficient and indeed would seem to be necessary, but not until the anti-libidinal medication has achieved what it can achieve and the CUBIT programme has been successfully completed. Until those things occur, supervision in the community will not be sufficient… [Supervision] will become sufficient once CUBIT has been completed successfully and once the anti-libidinal medication has done what it does."
71 The plaintiff also submitted that if the detention order was limited to what was termed the absolute minimum term of six months, this would lead to a fresh application by the plaintiff which would have to be commenced before the expiry of a six month detention order and would be likely to disadvantage the defendant as there was a real possibility that attending to the application would interfere with his treatment programme and distract him from the primary task of his rehabilitation.
72 The defendant submitted that if a period of continuing detention was ordered by the Court, the period of such detention should be no more than six months as that was the appropriate period having regard to the thrust of the evidence and the requirements of s 17(3) of the Act. Reliance was placed upon the evidence that six months should be adequate to complete the CUBIT course and to stabilise the defendant on anti-libidinal medication and that thereafter, from a clinical point of view, the defendant could be maintained in the community, there being adequate maintenance programmes available in the community once the CUBIT programme was completed and the medication could be administered and monitored in the community.
73 Additionally, it was submitted, that as the Department of Corrective Services had failed to ensure that the defendant was given the opportunity to commence the CUBIT programme well before the expiry of his sentence, any detention order should be no longer than six months. However, I do not rely upon this submission in reaching my conclusion.
74 In my opinion, the period of detention should be six months from today. The best estimate of the psychiatrists at the present time is essentially that the CUBIT programme should be completed in six months and the defendant stabilised on anti-libidinal medication within 3-6 months, assuming no contraindication to such medication. Thereafter, from the clinical perspective, the defendant should be in the community, albeit possibly subject to a continuing supervision order.
75 The evidence of the psychologists is generally to similar effect. I do not accept that the period of detention should be extended to permit participation in a custodial maintenance programme after the completion of the CUBIT programme particularly in the light of the psychiatric evidence, the fact the defendant has completed his sentence and where the manager of the CUBIT programme does not say such participation is necessary but merely "may be desirable".
76 Of course, it may be the defendant does not apply himself adequately to the CUBIT programme or a longer period is required for other reasons and that the use of anti-libidinal medication may be contraindicated or does not have the desired effect. These are matters which, no doubt, will be monitored during the forthcoming six months. If there is a failure to achieve what is intended within that period, the plaintiff presumably will take steps to obtain appropriate orders from the court. It is also possible that the defendant's progress, aided by the use of medication, may be more rapid than foreseen.
77 The submission that the defendant may be disadvantaged by the plaintiff bringing a further application to the court is noted. However, I do not regard this as an appropriate reason to extend the period of detention in circumstances where the defendant's submission is that any detention should be no more than six months and where his sentence has already been served.