State of New South Wales v Jesse John Lunn-Reid

Legislation Cited: Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) ss, 3, 5C, 17, 18A

Cases Cited: Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales v Winters [2007] NSWSC 1071; (2007) 176 A Crim R 249
State of New South Wales v Rosenburg (Preliminary) [2025] NSWSC 191

Category: Principal judgment

Parties: State of New South Wales (Plaintiff)
Jesse John Lunn-Reid (Defendant)

Representation: Counsel:
N Evans (Plaintiff)
J Wilcox (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor’s Office (NSW) (Plaintiff)
Legal Aid (NSW) (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2025/176147

Publication restriction: N/A

JUDGMENT

1. SWEENEY J: By notice of motion filed on 7 November 2025, the plaintiff, the State of New South Wales, seeks an Interim Detention Order be made in respect of the Defendant, Jesse Lunn-Reid, from 19 November 2025. Mr Lunn-Reid opposes the State’s application.

2. Mr Lunn-Reid is currently in custody, his parole having been revoked. His sentence will expire on 18 November 2025.

3. On 13 October 2025 Wright J made an Interim Supervision Order in respect of Mr Lunn-Reid, to commence on 19 November 2025.

4. The Defendant’s position is that the Interim Supervision Order made by Wright J is sufficient to achieve the primary object of the Crimes (High-Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (“the Act”) to ensure the safety and protection of the community, and will contribute to achieving the other object of the Act, which is to encourage the rehabilitation of the Defendant. The State’s position is that in order to ensure the safety and protection of the community, the Court should make the Interim Detention Order sought. The State submitted that in considering this interim application, the Court must have regard to the objects of the A**ct and give weight to risk avoidance: Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales v Winters [2007] NSWSC 1071; (2007) 176 A Crim R 249 at [17]; State of New South Wales v Rosenburg (Preliminary) [2025] NSWSC 191 at [23].

5. The State places weight on Mr Lunn-Reid’s behaviour since Wright J made the orders on 13 October 2025.

6. I note that the State’s application is listed for final hearing on 3 February 2026.

Summary of relevant statutory provisions

7. The power of the Court to make an Interim Detention Order is in s 18A of the Act which provides:

18A Interim detention order

The Supreme Court may make an order for the interim detention of an offender if, in proceedings on an application for a continuing detention order, it appears to the Court—

(a) that the offender’s current custody (if any) will expire before the proceedings are determined, and

(b) that the matters alleged in the supporting documentation would, if proved, justify the making of an extended supervision order or continuing detention order.

8. I note that in the preliminary hearing before Wright J the Defendant did not take issue that the matters alleged in the supporting documentation would justify an Extended Supervision Order.

9. Section 5C of the Act provides that the Court may make a Continuing Detention Order if the Court is satisfied to a high degree of probability that the person poses an unacceptable risk of committing another serious offence if not kept in detention under the order.

10. The factors to be considered in the determination of an application for a Continuing Detention Order are set out in s 17 of the Act. Section 17(2) provides that in determining whether or not to make a Continuing Detention Order or Extended Supervision Order, the safety of the community must be the paramount consideration of the Court. Section 17(4) sets out a non-exhaustive list of matters to be considered. The State relied on s 17(4)(k) in support of its application. That sub-paragraph provides:

…

(k) in the case of an application made on the basis that circumstances have altered since the making of an extended supervision order or interim supervision order against the offender—whether circumstances have altered since the making of the order and whether those altered circumstances mean that the risk of the offender committing a serious offence would be unacceptable unless a continuing detention order were made.

Evidence

11. The supporting documentation was put before me in four folders. The State relied on three affidavits of Jennifer Tsui and exhibits thereto, an affidavit of Kelli Grabham, and an affidavit of Patrick Mullane. The Defendant relied on an affidavit of Tracy Reynolds. In the hearing some further more recent Corrective Services notes were tendered and accepted into evidence.

12. The supporting documentation included Mr Lunn-Reid’s criminal history, the facts of previous offences, several previous psychological and psychiatric reports, and the judgment of Wright J of 13 October 2025.

Mr Lunn-Reid’s criminal history

13. From the judgment of Wright J I summarise the facts of the relevant offences in Mr Lunn-Reid’s criminal history. Mr Lunn-Reid’s first offences as an adult occurred in November 2007. For offences of breaching an Apprehended Violence Order, destroying or damaging property and resisting an officer in the execution of his duty he was placed on three good behaviour bonds for 8 months each.

14. In June 2009 Mr Lunn-Reid was sentenced for a number of domestic violence offences which occurred in May 2009. For an assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and two counts of intimidation and a common assault he was placed on three suspended sentences of imprisonment. For four other assaults he was placed on good behaviour bonds. The offences occurred when Mr Lunn-Reid was in the car with his partner. He punched her in the face numerous times, dragged her by her hair, threatened to kill her, grabbed and squeezed her throat, threatened to stab her with some scissors he put to her cheek and pushed her against the dashboard of the car.

15. In October 2011 Mr Lunn-Reid, with another man, went to the home of a person who had previously been a friend, ripped open the screen door and ran into the house. He swung the timber handle of the door which hit the victim to the side of his face. As a result of the injury the victim underwent corrective surgery for multiple fractures to the left side of his face, eye socket and nose and lost the sight in one eye. Mr Lunn-Reid plead guilty to one count of recklessly causing grievous bodily harm in company and was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2 years. The sentence commenced on 24 March 2012 and expired in March 2017.

16. On 8 November 2011, after absconding from a mental health facility, the Defendant and his father went to the home of a man whom the Defendant accused of sexually assaulting him when he was a child and sexually assaulting his mother. The Defendant and his father hit the victim with a glass bottle over his head, kicked him and hit him with a sharp piece of wood targeting his groin. The Defendant pleaded guilty to the offence of recklessly causing grievous bodily harm in company. He was sentenced to imprisonment for 4 years and 3 months, with a non-parole period of 2 years. The sentence commenced on 24 December 2013 and expired in March 2018.

17. In 2013 after Mr Lunn-Reid’s former partner had ended their relationship he went to her home and stabbed her repeatedly to the head, face and throat. When the victim’s sister intervened Mr Lunn-Reid swung the knife at her causing a laceration to her face. He pleaded guilty to wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and assault occasioning actual bodily harm. For the assault occasioning actual bodily harm he was sentenced to 2 years and 8 months imprisonment, commencing on 17 April 2016, with a non-parole period of 2 years. On appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal the sentence for the wounding offence was 8 years and 4 months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 4 years, 11 months and 9 days. The sentence was due to expire on 16 October 2025.

18. In 2015 while in custody Mr Lunn-Reid sent letters to his former partner in breach of an Apprehended Violence Order. For the first two such offences he was fined and for the third he was sentenced to 6 months imprisonment, which expired in February 2017. On 10 April 2015, while in custody, the Defendant, with other inmates, assaulted another inmate. For an offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm he was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment, commencing on 2 December 2015, with a non-parole period of 12 months, and for an offence of affray he was sentenced to 20 months imprisonment commencing on 2 December 2015, with a non-parole period of 16 months.

19. Mr Lunn-Reid was released to parole on 5 October 2022. On 20 November 2022 he was on a train with a cousin in the early hours of the morning. Mr Lunn-Reid’s cousin yelled at a passenger. Mr Lunn-Reid punched another passenger to the back of his head and further assaulted him. A short while later in the train trip Mr Lunn-Reid punched a different passenger, knocking part of his two front teeth out and causing him to black out momentarily. When police boarded the train to arrest him, Mr Lunn-Reid drew back his right arm, and police officers sprayed him with capsicum spray. Mr Lunn-Reid pleaded guilty to two counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, one of assault and one of assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty, with an offence of hindering or resisting a police officer taken into account on a Form 1. On 30 January 2024 he was sentenced to an aggregate sentence of 2 years and 6 months imprisonment commencing on 20 May 2023 and concluding on 19 November 2025, with a non-parole period of 1 year and 6 months.

20. Mr Lunn-Reid was released to parole on 21 November 2024. His parole was revoked on 19 March 2025 after a decline in his mental health and apparent resumption of drug use, and threats and aggressive behaviour in a psychiatric hospital. He was returned to custody on 26 March 2025.

21. On 26 June 2025 the Mental Health Review Tribunal made a Forensic Community Treatment Order, for a period of 12 months, in respect of Mr Lunn-Reid.

22. On 4 August 2025 Mr Lunn-Reid was again released to parole.

23. The State relies on events and Mr Lunn-Reid’s behaviour since Wright J made orders on 13 October 2025 as the basis for this application. Mr Lunn-Reid’s parole was revoked on 22 October 2025. The circumstances which led to that revocation of his parole are relied on by the State.

24. In the submissions by counsel for the State it was noted that prior to Mr Lunn-Reid’s return to custody he had been supervised (on parole) with little issue, other than an admitted relapse to drug use, which did not lead to revocation of his parole.

Diagnoses

25. On 13 October 2025 Wright J ordered that Mr Lunn-Reid be assessed by a psychiatrist and neuropsychologist. Those reports are not yet available. The supporting documentation contained multiple expert reports dating back to 2013. The most recent report was by Dr Richard Furst, psychiatrist, dated 26 January 2024.

26. Dr Furst considered a report of psychiatrist, Dr Stephen Allnut, dated 2013 and aspects of Mr Lunn-Reid’s offending history and drug abuse. He diagnosed Mr Lunn-Reid with Schizophrenia, Substance Use Disorder (in relation to methamphetamine and opiates), Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Borderline/Antisocial Personality traits. Based on the history Mr Lunn-Reid gave him, Dr Furst expressed the opinion that drug use had been normalised in his upbringing by his father, but his drug use and drug addiction was largely the product of genetic vulnerability to drug addiction, coupled with the traumatic effects of sexual abuse he said he had suffered in juvenile custody and possibly also in his early childhood. Dr Furst said that childhood sexual abuse is strongly correlated with mental disorders, substance abuse disorders and Borderline Personality Disorder.

Recent events

27. The recent events on which the State bases its application are set out in the affidavits relied on by the parties and the exhibits thereto.

28. On his release to parole Mr Lunn-Reid was living in Kempsey with family. His initial response to supervision was regarded as satisfactory by Community Corrections Officers. His mental health deteriorated on 16 October 2025. He was involuntarily admitted to hospital. He had also relapsed to drug use, testing positive on 29 September 2025 for methamphetamine and cocaine.

29. Mr Lunn-Reid initially went to Kempsey Hospital on 16 October 2025. While waiting in Kempsey Hospital overnight to be admitted to the Coffs Harbour Acute Mental Health Unit he was documented as agitated and hostile, obstructive and aggressive towards staff members and trying to leave the Emergency Department. He was settled and was transferred to the Coffs Harbour Acute Mental Health Unit on 17 October 2025.

30. There he was noted to be highly agitated, irritable, disruptive, aggressive, punching doors and threatening and abusing staff. He was noted as having made threats to staff over hours until he lost his voice. The threats were particularised to include threats to stab nursing staff in the throat or neck, bash and headbutt staff, find and bash or kill their families, “stomp[ing] the life” out of people, tearing someone’s head off, choke people, stab people and that he had “people on the outside who can fix things”. He was also reported to have threatened to “stab or slaughter people on the train” if he was directed to travel by train to new accommodation.

31. The Coffs Harbour Mental Health Team assessed Mr Lunn-Reid as not presenting with acute psychosis or other symptoms of mental illness and not in need of acute inpatient treatment in that facility or any other hospital. The note to that effect is not dated.

32. Kempsey Community Corrections prepared a recommendation that Mr Lunn-Reid’s parole be revoked and his parole was revoked as of 22 October 2025. He was received into custody on that date. The Justice Health and Forensic Mental Health Network records for Mr Lunn-Reid record that when he was taken into custody on 22 October 2025 he was under the influence of medication and was unable to undertake his reception interview. He was falling asleep during the reception. He told the nurse who was interviewing him that he had slept all week in hospital and been given multiple injections.

33. Shortly after midnight on 23 October, he “buzzed up” staff asking for his medication. He was told he could not be given medication because they did not have a doctor’s medication order. He was described as being verbally abusive to staff and continuing to buzz.

34. On 23 October in the late morning he was interviewed again, described as continuing to be “drowsy and frustrated” and “not cooperative with history of examination”. The record noted “won’t tell me which meds he is on”. He was described as escalating and so was unable to be examined.

35. Later in the afternoon of 23 October he was noted as still presenting as sedated and drowsy.

36. Shortly after midnight on 24 October Mr Lunn-Reid was attended and said he felt unwell. He was described as less sedated than the day before. He said he had not had his mental health medications for two days since leaving Coffs Harbour Hospital. The record noted he did not come with any paperwork from the hospital on transfer. He was described as being overly sedated on arrival from Coffs Harbour Hospital. Later in the morning of 24 October the note recorded that an urgent request had been made for documents from the recent hospital admission. The details of his medication were still not known.

37. A later record on 24 October recorded Mr Lunn-Reid as making reasonable eye contact with the nurse who interviewed him, although “frustrated with incarceration”. He was described as having poor insight and judgement. Documents from Coffs Harbour Hospital had still not been received and his medications had not been charted.

38. In the evening of 24 October Mr Lunn-Reid was recorded as having told a Corrections Officer he needed his Suboxone and/or other medications or he would swallow razor blades. A nurse who attended on Mr Lunn-Reid was told he had swallowed razor blades and Mr Lunn-Reid confirmed that to the nurse. He was told he could not receive Suboxone at that time of day. He was recorded as saying if he could not get pain medication he needed then he would continue to swallow razors so he could go to hospital. He was described as “heightened”.

39. About 3 hours later, on 24 October, Mr Lunn-Reid was described in a note as continuing to “knock up” and was administered night medications. About half an hour later Mr Lunn-Reid was noted as “knocking up”, stating he wanted his medication. The note stated his medication was only charted that day and not given. He was recorded as throwing cups of water under his door. His medication was found and administered and he was given puffs of his asthma puffer.

40. Early the next morning on 25 October Mr Lunn-Reid was noted to have received his medication as charted, although he refused one medication because of its effects. About three hours later, on 25 October, Mr Lunn-Reid was described as “heightened all morning”, he wanted his Buprenorphine, he had refused Quetiapine because it sedated him and he did not need it. The documents from Coffs Harbour Hospital had not yet arrived. Mr Lunn-Reid was described as continuing to be abusive over the intercom. At midday that day he was described as in a heightened state all morning, combative, argumentative, and challenging to engage with. At 2:40PM he was described as agitated and yelling in his cell and continuously buzzing the intercom. At 7:20PM on 25 October Mr Lunn-Reid was reviewed. He was described as “Day 2 in medical cell for non-compliance and swallowing 2 small razor blades”. He was noted as complaining of not receiving all prescribed medication since admission to prison, specifically one medication, which was noted as not prescribed in that prison. He was noted as enquiring about substitutes for pain management and expressing frustration with the prison’s medication policies. He complained of several specific symptoms. He was examined. He was assessed as having specific symptoms and otherwise the assessments were “inadequate pain management secondary to cessation of Gabapentin as per facility formulary” and “agitation and frustration related to institutional medication policies and perceived lack of care”. He was offered some medications and referrals. It was noted that his Buprenorphine management would be handled by the drug and alcohol service on Monday (25 October being Saturday).

41. A note just before 3AM on 26 October recorded that Mr Lunn-Reid had been “knocking up” several times at night asking for his medication and reporting stomach pain. The note recorded that his medication regime had been changed on 25 October and “nil stock available to give the patient”. It was noted that Mr Lunn-Reid was seen in his cell and was “quite upset that he was woken by staff”.

42. Just before 11PM on 26 October Mr Lunn-Reid was noted as having “knocked up” requesting specific medication. He was seen and given medication and described as cooperative.

43. On 27 October just after 3PM Mr Lunn-Reid was seen by a drug and alcohol medical officer, with whom he discussed having been on Buvidal when he left prison in July and having been switched to Suboxone, which he had received in Coffs Harbour Psychiatric Hospital. Buvidal was prescribed.

44. On 27 October 2025 after 3PM a nurse assessed Mr Lunn-Reid. He was described as “nil management issues”, his behaviour “appropriate generally, engaged with staff, irritable and talking about OST/MH concerns”. His risk of harm to others was assessed as low.

45. On 28 October just after 5PM Mr Lunn-Reid was noted as having been administered a Buprenorphine injection.

46. I have referred to these records in detail because the Corrections records note that Mr Lunn-Reid frequently misused his intercom system through the night, engaged in inappropriate and disruptive behaviour, including abusive language and unreasonable demands for immediate relief, being verbally aggressive and abusive towards staff, behaving in a highly erratic, belligerent and abusive way. It was noted on 26 October he flooded his cell, although when handed his medications he took them without issue. On 1 November 2025 he was recorded as having set his t-shirt on fire in his cell.

47. On 27 October he was described as “polite and cooperative, grooming and hygiene adequate… mood frustrated, tearful at times… noted visible shaking (reported due to Buprenorphine withdrawal) after two months on the program in the community”. On 27 October in another assessment, he was described as “cautious and seemed nervous, he did however make eye contact and answered all questions asked of him”. He asked to see the Mental Health Team for medication.

48. In updated case notes tendered in the hearing, a note of 12 November 2025 noted that although Mr Lunn-Reid appeared tired and at times “confused and dazed” he was “polite and engaged appropriately in discussion.” He accepted a referral to explore potential NDIS eligibility and to facilitate engagement with relevant support services. On 13 November 2025 a note recorded that Mr Lunn-Reid had consented to participating in the Violent Offenders Treatment Program – Maintenance [VOTP-M] (he having previously completed the Violent Offenders Treatment Program [VOTP]).

49. There was an affidavit from Kelli Grabham, the High-Risk Offender Applications and Operational Governance Officer, Extended Supervision Order Team, who has a history of working in Community Corrections since 2007, including managing high-risk offenders. Ms Grabham had not met Mr Lunn-Reid, but prepared an affidavit from her examination of records. She noted the observations of his conduct in custody from 23 October until 3 November 2025. In respect of the latter she noted that case notes indicated Mr Lunn-Reid said he set a fire in his cell as the nurse told him he was not receiving his medication because his leg was swollen. When the nurse explained to him that his medication was refused because it would double up on medication he had already received Mr Lunn-Reid asked why this was not explained to him earlier and acknowledged his actions were irresponsible and immature.

50. Those records demonstrate, in my view, that while in custody, at least for the initial period, Mr Lunn-Reid behaved in a disruptive, abusive and aggressive manner, but in the context that he was not provided with medication for several days, in the absence of the Coffs Harbour Psychiatric Unit providing discharge papers to inform the prescription of appropriate medication in the Correctional Centre. His behaviour can be seen to be misbehaving to gain attention in respect of his medication needs which were not being met. They show that when he was given explanations for the non-provision of medication he understood and accepted the explanations. They also show that once he was commenced on medications his behaviour settled, other than in the context of a lack of medication.

51. Ms Grabham said in her affidavit that she had made enquiries of Nunyara Community Offender Support Program (COSP) as to whether Mr Lunn-Reid can be accommodated there if he is released on 19 November 2025. She said that the Nunyara COSP manager has made a decision as of 6 November 2025 to provide Mr Lunn-Reid with a placement. Ms Grabham said that if Mr Lunn-Reid is released on 19 November, the Nunyara COSP is the only available viable accommodation option for him, as family and friends and temporary accommodation have been deemed unsuitable.

The Plaintiff’s submissions

52. The Plaintiff relied on the recent events of the Defendant’s mental health having declined, his having been admitted involuntarily to the Coffs Harbour Acute Mental Health Unit, and his behaviour having escalated significantly. The Plaintiff relied on the Defendant having threatened staff in that unit, as referred to previously, which was a significant factor in his parole being revoked. The Plaintiff then relied on the Defendant’s behaviour in custody having been oppositional and disruptive when his perceived needs, such as medication, were not met.

53. The Plaintiff submitted that while the Defendant was subject to parole supervision with significant supports, he persisted with high risk behaviours such as drug use, and that his incapacitation in custody would be a means of ensuring that the risk he poses of committing further violent offences could not eventuate, at least to people outside custodial settings. Those submissions were based on risk assessment reports by psychologist Catherine Sapula. The Plaintiff submitted that the Defendant’s recent behaviour shows those concerns are still existing.

54. The Plaintiff submitted that the Defendant’s recent behaviour shows a link between his antisocial personality traits and his risk of committing a serious violence offence. The Plaintiff submitted the Defendant does not presently have his family’s support, in addition to his inability to behave in a pro-social manner in the community because of a combination of his mental health and antisocial personality.

55. The Plaintiff submitted that because reports from the experts appointed pursuant to the orders of Wright J are not yet available, it would be premature to release the Defendant into the community given his recent behaviour, and when the expert assessments of his current mental health state will be available shortly. The Plaintiff submitted that releasing the Defendant into the community would pose a considerable risk to the safety of the community.

56. In response to the submission made on behalf of Mr Lunn-Reid that the Plaintiff should not seek an Interim Detention Order now, having abandoned that claim before Wright J, the Plaintiff submitted that there has been a change of circumstances since the hearing before Wright J, they being the positive drug test on 29 September 2025 and then the Defendant’s admission to the Coffs Harbour Mental Health Unit and his threats to the staff there. Counsel submitted that ss 18G(2) and 17(4)(k) demonstrate that the Act contemplates an application for a detention order being made on the basis of changed circumstances since a supervision order was made, which the Plaintiff contends is the situation here.

The Defendant’s submissions

57. The Defendant submitted that the Court should consider that the Plaintiff had abandoned seeking an Interim Detention Order before Wright J in deciding whether to make such an order now. The Defendant did not argue that the Court does not have jurisdiction to make such an order.

58. The Defendant submitted that the Court should not make an Interim Detention Order, that his supervising team has a plan for his return to the community by way of the COSP and there has been no effective change of circumstances since the preliminary hearing on 28 August 2025 before Wright J.

59. The Defendant submitted that before his return to custody in October he had been supervised on parole with little issue. He submitted that while the threats to staff in Coffs Harbour Hospital were concerning, he did not follow through with violent action. He submitted he engaged in attention seeking behaviour in custody apparently to obtain medication. He submitted he was transferred to the Long Bay hospital around 8 November and there is no evidence of any latter decompensation in his mental health.

60. The Defendant submitted that the Plaintiff’s plan is only containment, rather than a supportive transition to less restrictive environments.

61. The Defendant submitted that his proposed accommodation at COSP, subject to an Interim Supervision Order, is intensive community-based support, in which the circumstances will be different than when he was living with family on parole.

62. He relied on recent notes that he consents to progressing an NDIS application and undertaking the VOTP maintenance program, and although he expressed dissatisfaction when told he was not allowed to live with his family he did not react inappropriately.

63. Counsel for the Defendant submitted that the recent Corrective Services notes indicate he seems to have settled down in custody, and submitted he had behaved in a settled manner during the hearing.

64. The Defendant submitted that an Interim Supervision Order will encourage his rehabilitation. He submitted he has never been subject to an Interim Supervision Order. If released on such he will be subject to the strict conditions of the order, at COSP, attending the VOTP maintenance program and engaging with the CO-EX team who support offenders with mental health issues. He will not be in Kempsey, relatively unsupervised.

65. The Defendant submitted he made overall good progress during his most recent period on parole, despite his latter deterioration. He submitted that provides some insight into his compliance with supervision.

Consideration

66. It is clear that Mr Lunn-Reid has a record of offences involving serious violence which has continued until 2022. He has been in custody for much of the time since then, although he has previously committed a violent offence in custody.

67. I am satisfied that the matters alleged in the supporting documentation would, if proved, justify the making of an Extended Supervision Order. However, Mr Lunn-Reid is not going out into the community alone and unsupervised. The conditions of the Interim Supervision Order made by Wright J would have him closely supervised. His behaviour in custody has settled and improved since he was first admitted to a psychiatric unit and then custody. He has shown himself capable of understanding and accepting explanations, for example, about his medication and most recently about his proposed accommodation and programs. His proposed accommodation at Nunyara COSP and the stringent conditions of the Interim Supervision Order will have him more closely supervised than he has been in the past on parole, including the recent past.

68. His behaviour in the Coffs Harbour Psychiatric Unit, when he threatened staff, no doubt intimidated and upset the staff, but he did not engage in any actual physical violence. That is a degree of progress for him, albeit small, given his previous record.

69. I am satisfied that the safety and protection of the community can be ensured by Mr Lunn-Reid being subject to an Interim Supervision Order. I am not satisfied to a high degree of probability that he poses an unacceptable risk of committing another serious offence if he is not kept in detention.

Orders

70. Therefore the State’s application for an Interim Detention Order in respect of Mr Lunn-Reid is refused.

**********