Attorney-General of the Northern Territory v George [2025] NTSC 87

Attorney-General of the Northern Territory v George [2025] NTSC 87

• [1] The Attorney-General has made an application ("the application") under s 23(1) of the Serious Sex Offenders Act 2013 (NT) ("the Act") for a final continuing detention order or, in the alternative, a final supervision order in relation to the respondent. The application is made on the basis that the respondent presents a serious danger to the community.

• [2] The respondent is now 51 years of age. Between April 1999 and July 2012, he was convicted of 28 counts, primarily involving driving, property damage, assaults against females, aggravated assaults, furnishing a false name and possessing liquor in prescribed areas.[1]
• [3] The respondent was first convicted of sexual offending at the age of 28 years old. The circumstances of the offending were as follows. On 8 June 2002, the victim in the matter was walking her dog and said, "Hello," to the respondent and they began walking together. The victim and the respondent were not known to each other. The respondent said to the victim that they should both walk along the creek and the victim refused. The respondent approached the victim and grabbed her left arm, advising the victim not to call out and threatening her, advising her she would be in trouble if she did. The respondent took the victim in a bear hug and carried the victim around a bend in the creek. He dropped the victim on her back and said, "Let me do it and don't call out." The victim tried to get the respondent off her by pushing and kicking, but was not successful. The respondent pulled the victim's shorts and underwear off and threw them away. The victim clamped her legs together and the respondent tried to pull them apart. The respondent placed the ends of his two fingers into the victim's vagina without her consent while the victim continued to try to stop him. The respondent pulled down the victim's singlet top and bra and licked the victim's breast, continuing to hold the victim down. Then he tried to remove her shorts. The victim continued struggling against the respondent. He continued to threaten the victim and punched her in her left eye. The respondent eventually stopped, and the victim was able to escape. The incident was later reported by the victim to a Community Nurse. The respondent was convicted on 5 November 2022 and sentenced to three years imprisonment for the sexual intercourse without consent pursuant to s 208H of the Criminal Code Act 1983 (NT) ("the Criminal Code"), and six months imprisonment for the aggravated assault. A non-parole period of two years and two months was fixed.
• [4] The respondent was convicted of his second to ninth counts of sexual offending at the age of 38 years old. All of the offences occurred at the same time. On or about 9 March 2011, eight offences of sexual intercourse without consent pursuant to s 208H of the Criminal Code occurred at four separate locations over a period of approximately 10 to 12 hours. The circumstances of the offending were as follows:

• [5] In the early evening of 8 March 2011, the respondent dragged the victim into some bushes near a carpark where the respondent had penile/vaginal sexual intercourse without consent.

• [6] The respondent drove to his residence and engaged in digital/vaginal sexual intercourse and penile/vaginal sexual intercourse with the victim without her consent.

• [7] A short time after the third offence occurred, the respondent drove to One Tank Hill where he had penile/vaginal sexual intercourse with the victim without her consent.

• [8] At or near the Tennant Creek Railway Station, the respondent had anal/vaginal intercourse with the victim without her consent.

• [9] In the early morning of 9 March 2011, at the respondent's residence, the respondent had digital/anal intercourse, penile/oral intercourse and penile/vaginal intercourse with the victim, without her consent.
• [10] Each of the offences of sexual intercourse without consent were described as "inherently violent",[2] with the respondent inflicting other violence on the victim such as punching the victim to the face when she was trying to escape from the respondent's car and depriving her of her personal liberty.
• [11] The respondent was convicted on 3 July 2012 and sentenced to fourteen years imprisonment with a non-parole period of eleven years.

• [12] The respondent was due for release on 8 March 2025.
• [13] The application was filed on 22 January 2025. A preliminary hearing was conducted on 17 February 2025, following which the Court determined that the matters alleged, if proved, would satisfy the Court that the respondent, a qualifying member, is a serious danger to the community. As a result of that finding, the Court ordered that pursuant to s 25(2)(b) of the Act, the respondent submit to medical assessments, naming Dr Sarah Dorrington ("Dr Dorrington") and Dr Andrew Aboud ("Dr Aboud") as medical experts. Pursuant to s 30(2) of the Act, an interim continuing detention order was made against the respondent until close of business on 16 May 2025.
• [14] The application was listed for hearing on 16 May 2025, but the matter did not proceed at that time and the matter was relisted for hearing on 4 June 2025. The matter was not ready to proceed as a hearing on 4 June 2025, and the matter was further adjourned for a mention until 12 June 2025. The matter did not proceed on that date: it was later relisted for a mention on 10 July 2025. On 10 July 2025, the following orders were made.

(a) The matter is adjourned for Hearing to Friday 5 September 2025 at 10am.

(b) Leave is granted for the expert witnesses to appear via TEAMS on Friday 5 September 2025.

(c) The applicant is to file its submissions by Friday 22 August 2025.

(d) The respondent is to file his submissions in reply by Friday 29 August 2025.

(e) A call-up order is issued for the respondent to attend on Friday 5 September 2025 in person.

(f) The interim continuing detention order is to continue until COB Friday 5 September 2025.

• [15] On 21 August 2025, an extension of time of five days was granted to both the applicant and the respondent to file their submissions.

• [16] During the course of the final hearing conducted on 5 September 2025, the Court received into evidence the following:

(a) a report of Acting Assistant Commissioner Louise Odgen dated 2 June 2025 prepared pursuant to s 88 of the Act ("the s 88 report");

(b) a report of Dr Aboud dated 6 May 2025;

(c) a report of Dr Dorrington dated 19 April 2025; and

(d) a report of Assistant Commissioner Tracy Luke dated 25 August 2025 ("the further s 88 report").

• [17] Dr Aboud and Dr Dorrington were also called to give oral evidence and were examined and cross-examined by the applicant's and the respondent's counsel. The Acting Assistant Commissioner, and Assistant Commissioner were not called to give oral evidence.

• [18] The s 88 report summarised the programs the respondent had undertaken while in custody. The Acting Assistant Commissioner noted that from 9 January 2014 to 30 October 2014, the respondent undertook the Sex Offender Treatment Programme ("SOTP"). The report for the SOTP program noted that the respondent was an active participant and identified his significant difficulties with intimacy and his lack of coping skills as concerns for future intimate relationships. Of particular concern are the comments made by the author of the report, Principal Psychologist, Simon Forbes, where he stated "GG demonstrated cognitive distortions in regard to his attitudes towards women. GG did not take responsibility for his offending; instead, he endorsed the belief that violence against women is acceptable." Regarding his offences, the respondent maintained that the sexual intercourse was consensual despite contradictory evidence.
• [19] The s 88 report contained a recommendation that the respondent complete the Intensive Alcohol and Drug Program ("IADP").
• [20] The Acting Assistant Commissioner also noted that between 29 March 2022 and 21 June 2022, the respondent attended 65 program hours across 22 group sessions of the IADP, with a recorded attendance of 100% participation. The report noted that the respondent self-disclosed that he was first introduced to alcohol at 11 years old by his brothers, and by the age of 16 years old, the respondent said he would consume alcohol to the point of "passing out". The respondent self-disclosed the exposure of his brothers engaging in violent behaviours while intoxicated, and the excessive consumption of alcohol by his parents and older brothers. IADP recommended, specifically in relation to the respondent's substance use, that "GG should be prohibited from consuming alcohol or illicit substances and should be subject to regular and random urinalysis and breath testing."
• [21] The Acting Assistant Commissioner further noted that in 2022, the respondent participated in a follow up Individual Maintenance Treatment due to his engagement with the SOTP program being deemed superficial. The exit report of the SOTP program described the respondent as having considerable remaining treatment needs in regard to cognitive distortions, interpersonal aggression, emotional control, insight into his offending, substance abuse, community support, impulsivity, compliance with community supervision and intimacy deficits - resulting in recommended further psychological intervention.
• [22] The Acting Assistant Commissioner observed that the senior clinician, who conducted individual treatment with the respondent, reported that the respondent had not yet demonstrated sufficient insight to suggest that his release planning was adequately developed for managing risk without significant external monitoring and support. While the clinician noted that the respondent had no outstanding treatment needs in custody, she recommended that, if released, the respondent would require substantial external monitoring and support to maintain a pro-social lifestyle and should be assisted in developing a more comprehensive release plan.
• [23] The Acting Assistant Commissioner further noted that from the period of 2 May to 9 May 2024, the respondent participated in the Family Violence Offender program, with a total of nine sessions. The exit report by the author recorded that the respondent was receptive to discussions and appeared to relate the program content to his own experiences. However, given the respondent's lengthy 14 year sentence and his status as a Serious Sex Offender, she observed that it remained difficult to assess the respondent's full understanding of the program concepts, citing institutionalisation and distorted thinking patterns. The report further noted that the respondent's skills and strategies from the program had not yet been tested in a community setting.
• [24] The Acting Assistant Commissioner also considered the respondent's ability to comply with future supervision. The Acting Assistant Commissioner noted that the respondent entered custody on 11 March 2011 at the Alice Springs Correctional Centre ("ASCC"), and since that time the respondent had moved between Darwin Correctional Centre ("DCC") and ASCC. It was noted that between 2014 and 2023, the respondent had recorded four incidents while incarcerated which included two incidents of trafficking a Net Card and mail from a female, fighting with an inmate, and making verbal threats towards other prisoners.
• [25] The Acting Assistant Commissioner also noted that finding suitable and stable accommodation for sex offenders upon release imposes significant challenges due to the nature of the offending. The respondent expressed his desire to return to community at Robinson River. However, this was deemed unsuitable because of remoteness and the inability for the respondent to be managed closely in that community. It was recommended that the respondent reside in a demountable at the ASCC precinct to assist the respondent with a gradual step-down approach, following his lengthy term of imprisonment. The Acting Assistant Commissioner also observed that the respondent should be subject to an electronic monitoring device ("EMD") and a curfew while residing at the demountable. The Acting Assistant Commissioner advised that once a level of stability and compliance had been achieved, accommodation in the township of Alice Springs would be considered.

• [26] Dr Aboud outlined the respondent's personal, medical, psychiatric, substance use and offending history.
• [27] In summary, Dr Aboud's report made the following observations and opinions:

(a) The respondent is a 50 year old Aboriginal man currently detained at the DCC under an Interim Continuing Detention Order ("ICDO") following completion of a 14 year prison term imposed in 2012. The respondent was convicted of 10 offences, including eight counts of sexual intercourse without consent, deprivation of liberty and aggravated assault. The offences occurred in March 2011 in Tennant Creek and involved the abduction and repeated sexual assault of a woman known to him over a 10 to 12 hour period while intoxicated and distressed over relationship issues.

(b) The respondent has a prior history of sexual offending, having been sentenced to three years imprisonment in 2002 for raping and assaulting a woman who was a stranger. In 2009, the respondent was convicted of aggravated assault but acquitted of another sexual offence. The respondent's criminal record dates back to age 16 and includes numerous offences involving violence, alcohol, and breaches of court orders. The respondent's violence has predominantly occurred in the context of alcohol abuse and domestic relationships.

(c) The respondent was born in Mount Isa: he is the third of five children. Both parents remained together during the respondent's childhood, though heavy drinking was common. The respondent began drinking at 11 years old, and his alcohol use escalated after his father's death when the respondent was 17 years old. The respondent has three children from three relationships, each marked by domestic violence linked to alcohol.

• [28] In 2014, a Violence Risk Scale Sexual Offender Assessment was conducted and identified nine key risk factors, including poor insight, impulsivity and substance abuse. The respondent has completed various rehabilitation programs, including sexual offender, substance abuse, and family violence programs. However, parole was refused in 2022 due to his failure to accept responsibility and lack of realistic reintegration plans.
• [29] In 2022, a STATIC-99R assessment was conducted: it placed the respondent in the "above average risk" category for sexual reoffending. In 2025, a psychiatric assessment diagnosed the respondent with antisocial personality disorder and alcohol dependence (currently abstinent due to his incarceration) but found no evidence of mental illness or paraphilic disorder.
• [30] Dr Aboud's report stated that the respondent:

(a) scored a 5 on the STATIC-99R instrument, putting him in the above average risk of reoffending assessed on that instrument;

(b) scored a 3 on the Risk Matrix 2000/S instrument, putting him in the high risk of reoffending assessed on that instrument;

(c) scored a 7 on the Risk Matix 2000/V instrument, putting him in the very high risk of reoffending assessed on that instrument; and

(d) scored a 20/40 on the Psychopathy Checklist (PCL-R) instrument, putting him below the cut-off point for diagnosing psychopathy assessed on that instrument.

• [31] During the course of the Risk for Sexual Violence Protocol (RSVP) instrument, Dr Aboud considered the respondent to have positive scores for the following:
  1. chronicity of sexual violence;
  2. escalation of sexual violence;
  3. physical coercion of sexual violence;
  4. extreme minimization or denial of sexual violence;
  5. attitudes that support or condone sexual violence;
  6. problems with self-awareness;
  7. problems with stress or coping;
  8. problems with substance use;
  9. problems with intimate relationships;
  10. problems with employment;
  11. problems with planning;
  12. problems with treatment; and
  13. problems with supervision.
• [32] During the course of the Risk for Sexual Violence Protocol (RSVP) instrument, Dr Aboud considered the respondent to have partial/possible scores for the following:
  1. diversity of sexual violence;
  2. problems with non-intimate relationships;
  3. problems with employment; and
  4. non-sexual criminality.
• [33] Dr Aboud's report opined that the respondent presents an overall unmodified risk of serious sexual reoffending that would be categorized as moderate to high, but that if he was subject to a supervision order, his risk of sexual reoffending (committing a serious sex offence) would be reduced to approaching low.[3]

• [34] Counsel for the applicant and respondent examined and cross-examined Dr Aboud regarding the central issue as to whether adequate protection of the community could be achieved through a supervision order rather than a continuing detention order.
• [35] During the course of oral examination, Dr Aboud confirmed his assessment on the respondent's risk of sexual reoffending which included penetrative acts and gratuitous violence.
• [36] Dr Aboud agreed that the respondent suffers from antisocial personality disorder. However, he also diagnosed the respondent with alcohol dependence disorder, noting that the respondent tends to overstate alcohol's role in his offending. Dr Aboud noted that Dr Dorrington added a diagnosis of narcissistic personality disorder, which Dr Aboud did not formally accept but he did accept it as consistent with overlapping traits in the same diagnostic category. Dr Aboud said that he observed no elaborate sense of self-worth in the respondent, though acknowledged that personality expression might vary between practitioners, especially given the gender and interpersonal dynamics.
• [37] Dr Aboud viewed the respondent as having a below-average intellect but adequate overall functioning. In agreement with Dr Dorrington, Dr Aboud noted that the respondent presents two significant and related risks, the first being serious sexual reoffending, and the second being non-sexual domestic violence towards female partners.
• [38] Dr Aboud stated that difficulties in intimate relationships, like jealously, anger and possessiveness, have historically triggered types of violence from the respondent. Relationship conflicts are therefore relevant to the respondent's sexual reoffending risk.
• [39] Dr Aboud further noted during oral evidence that alcohol restrictions would not remove the risk, but would meaningfully reduce it, given alcohol's disinhibiting and mood-destabilising effects. Dr Aboud supported a highly resourced and closely monitored management plan as essential for community safety.
• [40] Dr Aboud was provided with a proposed step-down and supervision plan for the respondent. Under this plan, the respondent would reside in a demountable within the prison precinct for two to three months under electronic monitoring and curfew, gradually reintegrating into the community with support from Community Corrections, Anglicare OutCare and ongoing psychological treatment. Dr Aboud considered this plan and gave his opinion that the plan was sufficient to reduce the respondent's risk to "approaching low", though it would not eliminate that risk.
• [41] Dr Aboud further emphasised that the step-down plan success depends equally on the external controls and the respondent's internal motivation to comply. Dr Aboud noted that without active cooperation, the respondent's risk management would be undermined. Dr Aboud recommended therapy targeting the respondent's "enlightened self-interest", to help the respondent understand that compliance is in his own best interest.
• [42] Dr Aboud acknowledged that the respondent's personality disorder traits heightened the risk of non-compliance. Dr Aboud noted that close supervision, swift consequences for breaches, and no tolerance for minor violations were therefore essential.
• [43] Despite the respondent's history including several breaches of court orders and prison misconducts, Dr Aboud noted signs of maturation and improved custodial behaviour. However, Dr Aboud also noted that community conditions are more permissive and thus riskier. Dr Aboud predicted that any future reoffending would likely be preceded by minor breaches such as curfew violations or attempts to access alcohol: hence the need for swift consequences and no tolerance for minor breaches.
• [44] Dr Aboud stressed that psychotherapy must focus primarily on motivation and compliance as insight, empathy, and acceptance of responsibility have historically been limited. Ultimately, Dr Aboud concluded that while supervision carries risks, a structured, closely monitored order could adequately protect the community.

• [45] Dr Dorrington outlined the respondent's personal, medical, psychiatric; substance use and offending history.
• [46] In summary, Dr Dorrington's report made the following observations.

(a) The respondent has no reported history of psychiatric illness, diagnosed or otherwise, and denied ever being at risk or experiencing depressive symptoms. The respondent's mood is good, he sleeps well, has no excessive worries, and he has never attempted suicide. The respondent remains hopeful for the future and reported no interpersonal issues while in prison.

(b) Before imprisonment the respondent drank alcohol regularly but not daily, and often to excess when socialising with friends or family. The respondent denied ever using cannabis, other illicit drugs, or volatile substances.

(c) Medically, the respondent has diabetes, which has previously been treated with insulin but is now managed with tablets after dietary changes. The respondent's current medications include Metformin, Linagliptin (both for diabetes), Ramipril, Indapamide, and Amlodipine (for blood pressure), Atorvastatin (for cholesterol), and Paracetamol as required. The respondent also reported childhood seizures, which had resolved by adulthood.

(d) The respondent's parents both drank excessively, although the respondent does not believe his mother drank during pregnancy. The respondent was born in Mt Isa and raised in Borroloola, speaking mostly English and limited traditional language. The respondent's schooling was irregular, attending intermittently between ages seven and 13. After leaving school, the respondent worked in manual jobs such as fencing, station work and rubbish collection.

(e) The respondent was exposed to domestic violence between his parents, usually related to alcohol use, but denied any learning, behavioural or juvenile offending issues. At the time of the respondent's arrest, he was in a relationship, which ended after his imprisonment. While the respondent acknowledged domestic violence had occurred, he claimed it was mutual, a statement inconsistent with available records.

• [47] To further understand the respondent's risk of sexual violence, Dr Dorrington conducted a risk assessment. Dr Dorrington used the Risk of Sexual Violence Protocol - version 2 ("RSVP-V2"), which is a structured professional judgement tool which provides a framework for gathering information relevant to sexual violence risk using factors which have been identified in the scientific literature as associated with risk of future sexual violence.[4] Dr Dorrington's RSVP-V2 assessment was provided in tabular form.[5]

His sexual violence has been infrequent but persistent, occurring in 2002 and 2012. A sworn statement by his ex-partner also described sexual violence in their relationship (I note that he has not been charged with any offences regarding this alleged conduct).

His sexual offences both included sexual intercourse without consent, however the offending in 2002 was brief and impulsive, whilst the offending in 2012 took place over several hours and could not be characterised as impulsive. His victims included a stranger and a relative.

He assaulted both victims and caused fear of further physical harm.

• N4: Psychological Coercion in Sexual Violence

His ex-partner has alleged sexual violence in the context of an abusive relationship with coercion. More information is needed regarding this.

• P1: Problems with Minimisation/Denial of Sexual Violence

Present on my interview and consistently during assessments/treatment with minimal response to intervention

• P2: Attitudes That Support or Condone Sexual Violence
• P3:

Present on my interview and consistently during assessments/treatment with minimal response to intervention

Has described his sentence as unfair, and viewed the SSO application with indignation as it characterised him as a sex offender. He reported that he had ended his relationship with BM, rather than this being a result of his domestic violence, and characterised himself as a victim. He consistently views himself as a helper with future plans of teaching his grandchildren and supporting his brother's release from prison without acknowledging potential struggles in these areas. He has in inflated sense of self with impaired insight and an impaired capacity to understand how others might view him, in keeping with a diagnosis of narcissistic personality disorder.

Has used alcohol to cope with stress including before the 2011 offending. He has become observably frustrated during treatment and my assessment when asked about his offending, suggesting an emotional/behavioural volatility, although he has dealt with a number of family deaths in prison and these stressors do not appear to have resulted in deteriorated behaviour or aggression

He witnessed domestic violence in childhood likely resulting in distorted beliefs about acceptability of gender-based violence

Has reported increased libido, possibly only when drinking alcohol

Has a diagnosis of personality disorder (antisocial and narcissistic). Some suggestion of psychopathic traits

Problematic alcohol use and was intoxicated during 2011 offending but not the 2002 offending

Has unrealistic views of relationships and history of domestic violence in intimate relationships

Names support people in the community but has not spoke with many since before he was in prison

Has held employment and undertaken training in prison and in the community

Youth offending and entrenched dismissive attitude regarding offending

Does not have a realistic plan for accommodation following release with previous parole reports rejecting Robinson River

His response to treatment in prison has been limited, and numerous assessors have commented on suspected difficulties comprehending information and applying abstract concepts

Has previously re-offended whilst on parole and breached bail and suspended sentences. He has received some institutional breaches in prison

• [48] In summary, Dr Dorrington's report advised that the respondent's sexual violence is driven by a sense of entitlement to sex and a desire to control women through physical force. The respondent's offending reflects broader gender-based beliefs that normalise violence towards women, as reflected in his history of assaults primarily against females. Dr Dorrington said that the respondent does not display general aggression towards men, and his attitudes suggest he blames women for his sexual offending.
• [49] Dr Dorrington advised that key factors in the respondent's offending include a lack of empathy for the victims, grandiosity, and a belief in his own power, which reduce his perception of consequences. Dr Dorrington said that the respondent views his imprisonment as unjust and continues to feel entitled to commit sexual violence. Although alcohol has contributed to the respondent's offending by increasing disinhibition, the respondent exaggerates its role to deflect responsibility. The respondent's use of alcohol likely coincided with anger or frustration, intensifying aggression rather than causing it.
• [50] Dr Dorrington also advised that some impulsivity was relevant to the respondent's earlier offences, while his later offences involved planning and control, showing calculated behaviour. He said it was possible that mild cognitive deficits, particularly in executive functioning, may impair the respondent's reasoning and self-control during emotional states, but that formal assessment was needed to confirm this. Dr Dorrington stated that despite these issues, the respondent has demonstrated strengths in custody - engaging in work and study, improving his health, and managing his diabetes - indicating that the respondent can make adaptive choices when motivated and emotionally stable.
• [51] Dr Dorrington's report opined that the respondent posed a high risk of future sexual violence if not subject to a detention or supervision order.[6]

• [52] Counsel for the applicant and respondent examined and cross-examined Dr Aboud regarding the central issue as to whether adequate protection of the community can be achieved through a supervision order rather than a continuing detention order.
• [53] Dr Dorrington noted that she accepts that the respondent has undertaken sex offender treatment and maintenance programs while in custody, though these have not produced significant change in his cognitive distortions, insight or attitudes towards women. While Dr Dorrington noted that ongoing therapy should continue under a supervision order, she expressed caution about the likely efficacy of further sex offender treatment. Dr Dorrington regarded community-based treatment as more beneficial than prison-based programs as the respondent would be able to apply learned coping strategies in a real-life context.
• [54] Dr Dorrington further noted that the respondent has cognitive difficulties, particularly with executive functioning, which affects his ability to interpret intellectual theory into practical behaviour. Dr Dorrington explained that this may explain why previous treatment in custody was unsuccessful, also noting that putting the respondent in a community setting, with practical-domain exposure and application of learned skills, could produce improved results, though Dr Dorrington remained realistic about the limited extent of potential improvement.
• [55] Dr Dorrington noted the ongoing concerns about the respondent's lack of insight and denial of his offending. She said that the respondent continues to reject the idea that he has sexually offended against women and maintains an entrenched sense of entitlement regarding sexual access. Dr Dorrington noted that she did not expect this to change materially. Dr Dorrington observed that while this mindset presents challenges, with appropriate monitoring and structured oversight of the respondent, these risks can be controlled within the framework of a supervision order.
• [56] Dr Dorrington emphasised the most important elements of community protection would not come from therapy but from external controls (i.e. restrictive conditions, close supervision, and frequent compliance checks) that should form a part of a supervision order. Dr Dorrington agreed that compliance would depend to some degree on the respondent's personal choice to cooperate, but also on the quality and consistency of case management, the support provided and the structure surrounding him.
• [57] Dr Dorrington noted that if the respondent were to feel frustrated, persecuted, or unfairly restricted by the other conditions, this could heighten the risk on non-compliance. Dr Dorrington further recommended that case managers be aware of signs of opposition or irritation and intervene early by reframing issues, increasing support, or, if necessary, tightening monitoring. Dr Dorrington noted that feelings of frustration alone would not justify returning the respondent to custody absent a breach.
• [58] Upon Dr Dorrington's review of the respondent's post management plans, she considered these to be comprehensive and effective. The step-down plan addressed key risk domains such as alcohol management, cultural and familial connects, stable accommodation, psychological support, and a graded step-down transition back to the community. Importantly, the post-management plan included conditions for relationship monitoring, requiring the respondent to inform his case manager of any intimate relationships to allow his partner, with consent, to meet the supervising officer to discuss safety issues.
• [59] Dr Dorrington noted that with these measures, the residual risk to the community would be low, and the risk of sexual violence could be acceptably managed. While Dr Dorrington preferred a longer step-down period of three months, she accepted that a shorted transition would still be effective.
• [60] Dr Dorrington's professional opinion concluded that the respondent remains a high-risk offender in the absence of supervision, but that a well-resourced supervision order, incorporating treatment, close monitoring, structured support, and progressive reintegration, would provide adequate protection for the community. Dr Dorrington further concluded that the key safeguards which would reduce the respondent's risk to a manageable level lie in consistent supervision, compliance monitoring, and graduated release; not just in therapy alone.

• [61] In the further s 88 report, the Assistant Commissioner noted that finding stable and suitable accommodation for the respondent upon release presents challenges. She said that the respondent wishes to return to his preferred Community in Robinson River, but that due to the nature of the offending, remoteness, lack of adequate services, lack of monitoring capacity, inaccessibility during the wet season, limited police attendance, and the fact that no psychologist or social workers would be available there, Robinson River would be unsuitable.
• [62] The Assistant Commissioner also noted that Community Corrections have arranged for the respondent to reside temporarily in a purpose-built demountable located on the grounds of ASCC for a gradual reintegration process. She noted that it was anticipated that the respondent would remain there for three months during which time the respondent will be subject to electronic monitoring, a curfew and structured outings. The respondent will be assisted by Community Probation and Parole Officers to access essential services such as Centrelink, banking and general life skills.
• [63] The Assistant Commissioner further noted that following positive engagement, the respondent will transition to Anglicare OutCare accommodation in Alice Springs, accommodation which offers housing and reintegration support for ex-prisoners. Accommodation will be available by early December 2025.
• [64] The Assistant Commissioner noted that the respondent cannot attend residential rehabilitation due to the nature of his offences but has been referred to Alcohol and Other Drugs Services Central Australia ("ADSCA") for community-based counselling and support. The respondent will be subject to abstinence and random testing for alcohol and drugs. She said the respondent has advised that he does not intend to drink again. The Assistant Commissioner noted there are concerns this is a learned response from the interventions the respondent has completed and discussions the respondent may have had in the past.
• [65] The Assistant Commissioner further noted that the respondent will receive Sex Offender maintenance treatment weekly and additional counselling through the Central Australian Aboriginal Congress ("CAAC") Social and Emotional Wellbeing ("SEWB") team. The Assistant Commissioner noted that the SEWB service will assist the respondent with emotional support but cannot provide offence-specific interventions. It is noted that the respondent will also engage in the Ingkintja Men's Program which progresses cultural identity, leadership and life skill development.
• [66] The Assistant Commissioner's report concluded that the Department of Corrections deems the respondent's release to a Final Supervision Order as suitable as the respondent has secured stable accommodation, comprehensive supervision and appropriate psychological and reintegrative supports.

• [67] On 5 September 2025, the application for a final continuing detention order or final supervision order pursuant to s 23 of the Act was heard before this Court. I was satisfied that the respondent was a qualifying offender;[7] that is to say that he had been convicted of a serious offence.[8]
• [68] Under s 31 of the Act, on hearing an application made under s 23, the Supreme Court may make a final continuing detention order or final supervision order in relation to the qualifying offender if satisfied that the qualifying offender is a serious danger to the community.
• [69] Under s 6 of the Act, a person is a serious danger to the community if there is an unacceptable risk that he or she will commit a serious sex offence unless he or she is in custody or subject to a supervision order.[9]
• [70] In deciding whether a person is a serious danger to the community, a court must have regard to:

(a) the likelihood of the person committing another serious offence;

(b) the impact of serious sex offences committed, or likely to be committed, by the person on:

(i) victims of those offences and the victims' families; and

(ii) members of the community generally; and

(c) the need to protect people from those impacts.

• [71] In determining an application under s 23, the paramount consideration is the need to protect victims of serious sex offences committed, or likely to be committed, by the person, their families and the general community. A secondary consideration is the desirability of providing rehabilitation, care and treatment for the qualifying offender.[10]
• [72] In considering the need for community protection, the Court must have regard to the likelihood of the person committing another serious sex offence; and also, to whether adequate protection could reasonably be provided when making a supervision order in relation to the person.[11]
• [73] I am satisfied, on the basis of the reports by the Acting Assistant Commissioner, Dr Andrew Aboud, Dr Sarah Dorrington, and the Assistant Commissioner, that there is a high risk of the respondent committing further serious sexual offences if released from prison unsupervised but that it is not necessary for the protection of the community for a continuing detention order to be made: the protection of the community can be adequately managed by the imposition of a continuing supervision order in the terms proposed. Accordingly, on 6 November 2025 I made the following orders:

1. The Interim Continuing Detention Order is to continue until 9.00 am on 10 November 2025. 2. Pursuant to s 31 of the Serious Sex Offenders Act 2013 (NT) ('the Act'), the respondent is subject to a final supervision order from 9:00am on 10 November 2025 for a period of five years, which order is to be subject to the following requirements. 3. Pursuant to s 18(1) of the Act, the respondent:

(a) must not commit: > > > (i) a serious sex offence; or > > > > (ii) an offence of a sexual nature; and > > (b) must report to a probation and parole officer as directed by a probation and parole officer; > > (c) must receive visits and accept communications from a probation and parole officer as directed by a probation and parole officer; > > (d) must give to a probation and parole officer information about his place of residence and place of employment or education as directed by a probation and parole officer; > > (e) must not leave, or stay out of, the Northern Territory without the permission of a probation and parole officer; and > > (f) must comply with any directions that a probation and parole officer gives to him pursuant to s 20 of the Act.

• [74] Pursuant to s 18(2) of the Act, there are no matters about which a probation and parole officer cannot give directions to the respondent pursuant to s 20 of the Act.
• [75] Pursuant to s 19 of the Act, the respondent:

(a) must reside and remain at a location specified by a probation and parole officer and until otherwise determined must not leave the premises at any time of the day or night without first obtaining permission from a probation and parole officer, except in the case of a personal medical emergency;

(b) must not purchase, possess or consume alcohol or remain in the presence of any person consuming alcohol and must submit to testing as directed by a probation and parole officer for the purpose of detecting the presence of alcohol;

(c) must not purchase, possess or consume any dangerous drug or remain in the presence of any person consuming a dangerous drug and must submit to testing as directed by a probation and parole officer for the purpose of detecting the presence of any such dangerous drug;

(d) will have attached and wear any monitoring device if directed to do so by a probation and parole officer;

(e) will allow the placing and installation of anything necessary for the effective operation of any monitoring device he is required to wear;

(f) must comply with the Rules of Electronic Monitoring;

(g) must comply with any direction given by a probation and parole officer to participate in any specified rehabilitation, care or treatment and structured day activities provided by his probation and parole officer;

(h) must permit a probation and parole officer to access his place of residence at all times for the purposes of ensuring compliance with the terms of his supervision order and to search for and seize anything he is not permitted to possess;

(i) must not be in possession or control of a firearm;

(j) must disclose to a probation and parole officer the details of any person with whom he enters into a relationship, including the full name of the person;

(k) must disclose his offending history to any prospective partner or employer;

(l) will be subject to a curfew as directed by a probation and parole officer;

(m) must not leave Alice Springs without the prior permission of Community Corrections; and

(n) must remain on the banned drinkers register.

[1] Affidavit of Rebecca Dunbar dated 2 January 2025 at [21]

[2] Sentencing Remarks of Justice Reeves p2

[3] Report of Dr Andrew Aboud dated 6 May 2025 p12

[4] Report of Dr Dorrington dated 19 April 2025 p 15 at [15.1]

[5] Report of Dr Dorrington dated 19 April 2025 p 15 at [15.2]

[6] Report of Dr Dorrington dated 19 April 2025 p 19

[8] A serious sex offence is defined in s 4 of the Act, relevantly, as an offence listed in Schedule 1 of the Act, which includes an offence against s 192 of the Act - sexual intercourse or gross indecency without consent