IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA
AT Melbourne
COMMON LAW DIVISION	Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication	

SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND COMMUNITY SAFETY		
		
v		
		
LARRY TEEL (A PSEUDONYM)		

---

JUDGE:	Judge Pillay 	
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne	
DATE OF HEARING:	22 July 2020	
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:

MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	Secretary to the Department of Justice and Community Safety v Teel (a pseudonym) 
[2020] VCC 1088	

REASONS FOR RULING
---

Subject:		Review of Supervision Order
Catchwords: 	Supervision Order - whether the respondent poses an unacceptable risk – non publication order 
Legislation Cited:	Serious Offenders Act 2018 (Vic)
Ruling:		Application Granted		

---

APPEARANCES:
	Counsel	Solicitors	
For the Department of Justice and Community Safety	A Imrie	Victorian Government Solicitor’s Office	
			
For the Respondent	R de Vietri	Victoria Legal Aid	

HIS HONOUR:

1	Mr Imrie, of Counsel, appearing for the Secretary to the Department of Justice and Community Safety (“the Secretary”) makes application for review of a supervision order under s 22(1) of the Serious Offenders Act 2018 (Vic) (“the Act”). The respondent, Mr Larry Teel, is represented on the application by Mr de Vietri of Counsel.
2	Mr de Vietri advised that the respondent did not oppose the making of the order or the proposed conditions. However, it is still a matter for me to determine whether the test for the making of the order has been met and if so, the conditions that are appropriate on the order.
3	I have had the opportunity to read the assessment reports prepared by Mr Simon Candlish, Consultant Psychologist, dated 10 February 2020. In his report, Mr Candlish assesses the respondent to be of moderate to high risk, taking into account the state of his health, particularly his dementia. Based on the material in those reports, I am therefore satisfied that the respondent poses an unacceptable risk of committing a relevant offence if a supervision order is not in effect and he is released unsupervised in the community. I am satisfied that the core conditions and additional conditions that both Counsel submit are necessary to address the risk of further offending.
4	I therefore order that Mr Teel be subject to a supervision order under the Act. The order is to commence on 22 July 2020. The supervision order remains in force for three years. The supervision order is to be subject to the conditions consented to by the respondent and detailed in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the formal order signed by me on 22 July 2020.
5	Finally, the respondent made an application for a non-publication order pursuant to s 279 of the Act. The making of an order prohibiting publication of information regarding both the respondent’s identity and whereabouts was opposed by the Secretary. Mr Imrie, on behalf of the Secretary, submitted that the order should be as to location only. I am mindful that despite the respondent’s identity being previously disclosed by Mr Hinch, s 1(b) of the Act requires me to consider the respondent’s treatment when making a non-publication order. I consider his treatment to be in jeopardy if his identity and location is disclosed. I grant the respondent’s application and make an order pursuant to s 279 of the Act, that it is in the public interest to prohibit publication of information that might enable the respondent or his whereabouts to be identified. The form of the order under s 279 is set out in paragraph 8 of the formal order signed by me on 22 July 2020.