Dangerous Criminals and High Risk Offenders Act 2021

Applicant: Office of Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2025] TASSC 46

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS v CHRISTO BROWN

1. The Director of Public Prosecutions ("DPP") applies, by an application filed on 2 July 2025, for a high risk offender order in respect of the respondent, Christo Brown, pursuant to s 33(1) of the Dangerous Criminals and High Risk Offenders Act 2021 ("Act").
2. The State filed submissions dated 15 September 2025.
3. Upon hearing the parties on 18 September 2025, the DPP applied to amend the application to change the date of Mr Brown's conviction for the crime of rape from "28 July 2018" to "28 September 2018". I made an order to that effect.
4. Mr Brown was initially represented by Legal Aid. Legal Aid subsequently indicated, prior to the hearing, that it would apply to withdraw. Indeed counsel for the respondent made that application at the outset of the hearing. Ultimately, however, Mr Brown agreed that Legal Aid continue to represent him. Ms Clark appeared for him at the hearing of this application. The assistance of counsel for both parties was valuable.
5. Mr Brown's earliest release date is 31 October 2025.
6. Mr Brown is a "relevant offender" for the purposes of the Act. He was born on 30 March 1997 and is currently aged 28 years.
7. Mr Brown was sentenced by Pearce J to eight years' imprisonment with eligibility for parole following his conviction for the rape of a 76 year old woman in 2015. I will not reiterate the facts but note the sentencing judge's assessment that Mr Brown's risk of reoffending was "relatively high".
8. As a fourteen year old, Mr Brown also has one prior conviction for a serious offence under the Act being the crime of arson for which he was convicted with other offences on 6 August 2012.
9. Whilst on bail Mr Brown spent time in Queensland where he was convicted of a sexual assault which occurred in July 2016. Again, I will not reiterate the facts.
10. In July 2019 Mr Brown was convicted of four counts of assault and an aggravated burglary in relation to an incident in January 2015. He has been in custody since 9 November 2017. As it can be seen, he has served a longer time in prison than the non-parole period for the sentence on his conviction for rape and, at the time of his release, will not have been in the general community for eight years.
11. I have read the materials supplied. In particular, but not limited to, the Behaviour and Management Report submitted to the DPP on 1 April 2025, and the Risk Assessment Report of Associate Professor Rajan Darjee dated 22 June 2025. The first was provided to the DPP pursuant to s 27(4) of the Act and the latter pursuant to s 29(5) of the Act.
12. During the hearing it became clear that the making of the order, as such, was not opposed, with the points of contention focussing upon (i) two of the conditions sought by the DPP relating to the terms of a curfew and the consumption of alcohol, and (ii) the length of the operational period of such an order. Essentially, Mr Brown wishes to move to Perth, Western Australia, to avoid pro-criminal connections in Tasmania which he considers may hamper his rehabilitation and reintegration into the community.
13. I have carefully considered material and the submissions put on behalf of Mr Brown. I have also noted reports of his conduct in prison over recent times. In his letter to the Court dated 20 August 2025 provided at a time when Legal Aid had indicated it was proposing to withdraw, Mr Brown attaches at "1" an undated letter to the sentence panel where he notes at un-numbered p 2 (italics added), "Through my support networks, and my hard work in the courses that are available to me I have been incident free for the entire time I have been in the minimum facility, demonstrating that in the right environment with the right support. I can successfully pursue rehabilitation." That passage recognises and demonstrates Mr Brown's need for on-going support in the community following his release.
14. In the absence of an order Mr Brown would be denied the support he needs and his re-integration with the community would be put at significant risk. This conclusion has to be understood in the context of the Behaviour and Management Report. That report described Mr Brown's attitude as a prisoner (p 3). Albeit that they are disputed by Mr Brown (see his account set out above), the summary provided examples of Mr Brown's reported conduct in prison, to the effect that:

"These behaviours indicate a disregard for rules and a tendency to intimidate and make inappropriate advances towards female staff. Mr Brown can be polite and courteous, however he is often observed engaging in inappropriate behaviour towards female staff. There is no basis upon which I can conclusively resolve these factual disputes. However in exercising the Court's jurisdiction in this matter, I am primarily concerned with risk rather than establishing the precise nature of Mr Brown's conduct in prison."

1. In summary the Behaviour Management Report stated (at p 4):

"(i) Mr Brown is a young man, with a long history of violence and drug use. Mr Brown has made treatment gains, and his behaviour change has been noticed among wider staff. However, Mr Brown still presents with many of the risk factors associated with sexual and violent offending, and he is in the above average risk of future sexual offending. Therefore Mr Brown will require a high level of intervention and risk management in the community if he is to be released on parole.

(ii) Mr Brown has shared his willingness and openness to continue working through his anxiety and substance use in the community. Mr Brown has been eligible for parole for several years but has not completed the relevant treatment to be eligible.

(iii) Mr Brown has had effective engagement; however it is noted his risk has been assessed in a custodial environment. To mitigate the risks he poses, Mr Brown would benefit from strict community supervision so he can effectively integrate into the community with support."

1. In his risk assessment, Associate Professor Darjee notes of Mr Brown (p 29) that "Given the level of risk, ... [Mr Brown] ... is assessed as posing he will require long term intensive monitoring, supervision and intervention in the community to prevent further sexual violence. He is likely to require external risk management for a long period of time. The offence specific treatment he has received in custody has not significantly reduced the risk he poses, ameliorated relevant dynamic factors, or helped him develop relevant prosocial skills ... In addition, he will require ongoing restrictions and interventions so he does not use alcohol or other substances in the community".
2. Mr Brown sought to vary the conditions the DPP sought at paragraphs (k) and (n), In respect of (k), by amending the relevant curfew times provided, and at (n) by allowing the consumption of alcohol up to the legal limit.
3. However, I am satisfied that, as recommended by Community Corrections, a curfew with inbuilt flexibility is required, and it will only be made verifiable by way of electronic monitoring, with resort to police checks in exigent circumstances. On the basis of the material provided to me, I consider that the conditions relating to curfew and alcohol consumption as sought by the DPP should not be varied as sought by Mr Brown.
4. On the whole of the material provided to the Court and the submissions made at the hearing, I am satisfied to the high degree of probability as required by s 35(2) of the Act, that Mr Brown poses "an unacceptable risk of committing another serious offence" unless a high risk offender order is made in relation to him.
5. As to the length of the order, the DPP sought the maximum term of five years. I explained to Mr Brown, through his counsel, that he may be in a stronger position to seek to vary or have the order discharged after a period of demonstrated compliance in the community.
6. I accept the DPP's submission as to the required length of the order. I do so on the basis of the risk assessment provided and because s 36(1) of the Act states that the safety of the community must be the paramount consideration when determining whether or not to make an order. Further, because s 36(1) necessarily implies the significance of that consideration when framing any conditions to apply upon any such order being made, including its length.
7. As I have said, on the whole of the material, I am satisfied that a high risk offender order should be made in respect of Mr Brown. I am satisfied that the operational period sought, of five years, is appropriate. I will impose the conditions as sought by the DPP to reflect the recommendations provided to me and also pursuant to s 36(1) of the Act.
8. I make a high risk offender order for a period of five years to commence on the date of release.
9. In relation to the conditions of the order, there will be the core conditions as set out in s 38(1) of the Act. These will be conditions (a)-(j) of the order, ie:

(a) a condition that the offender must not, during the operational period of the order, commit an offence that is punishable by imprisonment;

(b) a condition that the offender must report by close of business on Monday, 3 November 2025 to a probation officer at an address as directed by Community Corrections;

(c) a condition that the offender must, during the operational period of the order, report to a probation officer as required by the probation officer;

(d) a condition that the offender must, during the operational period of the order, reside at premises approved by a probation officer;

(e) a condition that the offender must, during the operational period of the order, permit a police officer to enter the premises at which the offender resides;

(f) a condition that the offender must, during the operational period of the order, permit a police officer to -

(i) conduct a search of the premises at which the offender resides; and

(ii) conduct a frisk search, within the meaning of the Search Warrants Act 1997, of the offender, at the premises at which the offender resides or at any other place or premises; and

(iii) take a sample of any substance found on the premises at which the offender resides or on the person of the offender;

(g) a condition that the offender must comply with any reasonable and lawful directions of a police officer, probation officer or prescribed officer, including any directions as to the kind of employment, or the place of employment, of the offender;

(h) a condition that the offender must, during the operational period of the order, if directed by a probation officer to engage in a personal development activity, counselling or treatment, engage in that activity, counselling, or treatment, in accordance with any directions given by the probation officer;

(i) a condition that the offender must not leave the State of Tasmania except with the approval of the Director of Corrective Services;

(j) a condition that the offender must, during the operational period of the order, submit to the supervision of a probation officer or prescribed officer as required by the probation officer or prescribed officer.

1. There are additional conditions the Court may impose under s 38(2) and the State seeks the application of a further six conditions - refer to ss 38(2)(a), 38(2)(b), These will be conditions (k)-(p) of the order, ie:

(k) a condition that the offender must, during the operational period of the order, between 8:00 pm and 6:00 am daily, be at premises approved by a probation officer and present himself to police if required to do so, except if the offender is not, for a relevant reason, at the premises or has the prior approval of the probation officer to be absent;

(l) a condition that the offender must, during the operational period of the order or unless determined by a probation officer, submit to electronic monitoring, including by wearing or carrying an electronic device;

(m) a condition that if the offender is, in accordance with paragraph (l), required to submit to electronic monitoring -

(i) the offender must not remove, tamper with, damage or disable any device used for the purpose of the electronic monitoring;

(ii) the offender must not allow anyone else, except a probation officer, police officer or prescribed officer, to remove, tamper with, damage or disable any device or equipment used for the purposes of electronic monitoring; and

(iii) the offender must comply with all reasonable and lawful directions given to the offender in relation to the electronic monitoring;

(n) a condition that the offender must not, during the operational period of the order -

(i) consume alcohol or an illicit drug; or

(ii) possess, use or administer, including self-administer, a substance included in Schedule 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 2001 or in a manner that would be unlawful under the Poisons Act 1971;

(o) a condition that the offender must, during the operational period of the order, when directed to do so by a police officer, probation officer or prescribed officer, submit to a breath test, urine test, or other test, for the presence of alcohol, illicit drugs or medication; and

(p) a condition that the offender must engage in any psychiatric, psychological, therapeutic or counselling interventions as reasonably directed by a probation officer.