IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA	Not Restricted	
AT MELBOURNE
Criminal Division
S CR 2018 0098

SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND COMMUNITY SAFETY	Applicant	
		
v		
		
CWE	Respondent	

---

JUDGE:	Tinney J	
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne	
DATES OF HEARING:	18 & 19 October 2021	
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	20 October 2021	
DATE OF REASONS 	7 December 2021	
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Secretary to the Department of Justice and Community Safety v CWE	
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSC 811	

---
CRIMINAL LAW – Application for interim supervision order – Existing supervision order – Delay of renewal application – Application opposed by respondent – Whether documents in support would, if proved, justify the renewal of the supervision order – Whether in the public interest to make an interim supervision order – Moderate risk of committing both a serious sex offence and serious violence offence – Concerning nature of likely reoffending scenario – Making of interim supervision order justified – Order made – Non-publication order – Serious Offenders Act 2018 ss 1, 14, 46, 47, 134.

---

APPEARANCES:
	Counsel	Solicitors	
For the Applicant 	Mr P Holdenson QC with
Mr R Kornhauser	Victorian Government Solicitor’s Office	
			
For the Respondent	The respondent appeared in person		

HIS HONOUR:
Introduction
1	The Secretary to the Department of Justice and Community Safety (‘the Secretary’ or ‘the applicant’) applied for an interim supervision order (‘ISO’) under s 46 of the Serious Offenders Act 2018 (‘the Act’) against the respondent, CWE. The application for an ISO was made against the background of an earlier application by the Secretary for the renewal of a supervision order (‘SO’) made in respect of the respondent, which application would not have been determined before the expiry of the SO. 
2	The making of the ISO was opposed by the respondent.
3	Having heard submissions by Mr Holdenson QC, who appeared with Mr Kornhauser for the applicant, and by the respondent who appeared in person, I was satisfied that the requirements for the making of an ISO had been established, and that it would be in the public interest to make the order. I was also satisfied that it would be appropriate for me to exercise my discretion to make an ISO. I therefore made an ISO in the terms sought by the applicant. 
4	I indicated that I would publish my reasons at a future time. These are those reasons. 
Background
5	The respondent was sentenced to a long term of imprisonment in 2003 for rape and intentionally causing serious injury (‘ICSI’). On 15 January 2015, he was released on parole. On 19 July 2018, Champion J made an ISO. This order commenced on the expiry of the respondent’s sentence on 25 July 2018. On 31 October 2018, an application for a supervision order (‘SO’) was heard by Champion J. On 22 November 2018, the respondent absconded, having first removed and discarded his electronic monitoring device. On 23 November 2018, in the absence of the respondent, Champion J made a SO for 3 years which commenced on 24 November 2018. The respondent was apprehended in New South Wales (‘NSW’) on 9 January 2019 and extradited to Victoria on 11 January 2019. Charges were laid against the respondent alleging contraventions of the ISO and SO. While the charges were pending, on 4 April 2019, the applicant brought an application for review of the conditions of the SO. On 5 April 2019, a plea hearing for two contravention charges proceeded before Champion J. The application for review was heard by Champion J on 22 May 2019. On 16 September 2019, his Honour pronounced a sentence of 10 months’ imprisonment for the charges, and made an intensive treatment and supervision condition (‘ITS’) following the review, by virtue of which the respondent would be required to reside at Rivergum Residential Treatment Centre (‘Rivergum’) at the expiration of the sentence. 
6	On 8 November 2019, the respondent finished his custodial sentence and commenced to reside at Rivergum.
7	On 27 October 2020, applications for review of the SO and of the ITS condition were filed in the Court. Those applications were heard by Champion J over a number of days in the first half of 2021. On 9 July 2021, his Honour granted the applications and confirmed the SO and the ITS condition.
8	On 18 August 2021, an application for the renewal of the SO under s 22 of the Act was filed and served on the respondent. 
9	On 21 September 2021, an application under s 46 of the Act for an ISO was filed and served on the respondent, on the basis that the SO would have expired before the application for the renewal was determined. 
10	At the time of the hearing of the application for the ISO, the ITS condition was still in place, and the applicant continued to reside at Rivergum. The ITS has since expired, and since 7 November 2021, the respondent has resided in the community at an address specified in the ISO.
11	The application for renewal of the SO is now listed for hearing on 14 and 15 December 2021.
The legislative framework
12	The application for an ISO was brought under s 46 of the Act, which relevantly provides:
46	Application for interim supervision order
(1)	The Secretary may apply to the court for an interim supervision order in respect of an eligible offender who is the subject of an application under section 13 or 22.
(2)	An application under subsection (1) is commenced by filing a notice of application in accordance with the rules of court, if any.
	…
(4)	An application under subsection (1) may be commenced at the same time as an application under section 13 or 22 or at any later time before the application under section 13 or 22 is determined.
…
13	Section 47 of the Act sets out the requirements for the making of an ISO. It relevantly provides as follows:
47	Determination of application for interim supervision order
(1)	On an application under section 46, the court may make an interim supervision order in respect of an eligible offender if—
(a)	the court is satisfied that—
(i)	an application under section 13 or 22 in respect of the offender has been commenced but not determined; and
(ii)	either—
…
(B)	the previous supervision order has expired or will have expired before the application under section 22 is determined; and
(b)	it appears to the court that the documents in support of the application under section 13 or 22 would, if proved, justify the making or renewal of a supervision order; and
(c)	the court is satisfied that it is in the public interest to make an interim supervision order.
(2)	For the purposes of subsection (1)(c), the court must have regard to—
(a)	the reason why the application under section 13 or 22 was not, or will not be, determined before the offender is released from custody or before the expiry of the previous supervision order, as the case requires; and
(b)	any other matter the court considers appropriate.
(3)	If the court is satisfied as required by subsection (1), the court may—
(a)	make an interim supervision order; or 
(b)	make no order.
(4)	The court may hear and determine an application under section 46 even if the offender has ceased to be an eligible offender because—
(a)	the custodial sentence has been served or has expired; or
(b)	the offender is no longer subject to a supervision order.
Evidentiary material upon which application based
14	The secretary relied principally upon the Detention and Supervision Order Progress Report of Dr Joel Godfredson dated 10 August 2021 (‘the progress report’). In addition, the Secretary relied upon a number of other items referred to in the progress report. These included the reasons for sentence of Teague J on 6 November 2003, the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the appeal from that sentence, the reasons for sentence of Champion J on 16 September 2019, and the antecedents of the respondent. 
The progress report
15	Dr Godfredson has assessed the respondent a number of times since 2018 for the purposes of proceedings under the Act or its predecessor. In preparing the progress report, as well as his previous knowledge of the respondent, Dr Godfredson relied upon a video-conference with the respondent on 23 July 2021, video-conferences with other practitioners who have dealt with the respondent, the results revealed by a number of risk assessment tools he used, and a large body of file and other material. The focus of the progress report was the progress of the respondent on the SO, in particular, during the 10 months leading up to the time of the report. 
16	In the report, Dr Godfredson set out details of the index offending, which offending, it might be observed, comprised a rape which the Court of Appeal was moved to describe as ‘as serious an example of a single instance of that crime as one could imagine’, and a charge of intentionally causing serious injury (‘ICSI’) which was also considered to be a most serious example of that crime. It is not necessary for the purposes of this judgment to dwell further on the facts of the index offending.
17	Dr Godfredson also set out the criminal history of the respondent in Victoria and NSW. That history included, significantly, convictions on charges of aggravated burglary and intentionally causing injury arising from an incident which occurred when the respondent was aged 17 years. He apparently entered the home of a family friend, armed with a large piece of firewood, and struck the female victim with the wood, causing her to fall backwards. The respondent reportedly attempted to remove the underpants of the victim before being restrained by the victim’s son. The respondent was originally charged with assault with intent to rape and other offences but pleaded guilty in the end to the above charges. He received a suspended sentence and a fine. The offending apparently occurred in the context of alcohol intoxication and a slight made by the victim’s son towards the respondent. 
18	Dr Godfredson went on to set out the circumstances of the respondent’s offending on the SO including the respondent’s flight to NSW.
19	Dr Godfredson summarised the results of quarterly reviews of the respondent prepared by his Specialist Case Managers (‘SCM’) during the 10 months leading up to the progress report. He also summarised the offence specific and other treatment received by the respondent during the period. 
20	It would be correct to say that Dr Godfredson’s summaries of the quarterly reviews and treatment indicated on the one hand the progress made by the respondent and his excellent level of attendance and engagement with supervision and treatment and the requirements of Rivergum, but on the other, ongoing concerns flowing, in particular, from his continuing feelings of suspicion and paranoia regarding Rivergum and the broader justice system and his belief that he is being persecuted by Corrections Victoria (‘CV’).
21	Dr Godfredson carried out risk assessments in respect of sexual offending and non-sexual violence offending which involved, amongst other things, the use of a number of tools used by experts in the area of risk assessment. The results derived from the tools were set out in detail in the progress report and it is not necessary for present purposes to set them out. Suffice to say that Dr Godfredson assessed the respondent as posing a moderate risk of both future sexual violence and future non-sexual violence. In each case, this represented what Dr Godfredson described as a ‘modest reduction in his risk status’.
22	Dr Godfredson set out a comprehensive case formulation which was presented in the Detention and Supervision Order (‘DSO’) Assessment Report dated 12 March 2018 and updated in subsequent reports. The formulation included the following observations:
i.	[The respondent] has a lifelong sensitivity to real and imagined slights, suspicion regarding others’ motives, and a tendency to believe that people are testing or antagonising him.
ii.	To hide his emotional sensitivity, [the respondent] adopted a passive response to real and imagined slights, and often chastised himself regarding a perceived inability to stand up for himself.
iii.	[The respondent’s] subjective experiences of injustice result in cumulative feelings of anger and resentment.
iv.	To compensate for these sensitivities, [the respondent] conveys a self-assured personality style. This trait, along with difficulty trusting others, prevents him from voluntarily seeking personal and professional support.
v.	Beginning in early adulthood, [the respondent] abused alcohol as a means to cope. When intoxicated, his capacity to (over) control his emotions and behaviour was severely compromised.
23	Dr Godfredson noted the prior offending of the respondent, which he stated appeared to be underpinned by similar psychological processes including a gradual build-up of anger and resentment in the context of poor coping skills, the presence of a minor slight, an impulsive and disproportionate reaction to such slights, and the presence of alcohol intoxication.
24	Dr Godfredson observed that the respondent had struggled to cope with the requirements of parole. The psychological processes associated with his prior offending had not been remedied by treatment he received in custody. Concerns about his risk potential had led to him being subject to increasingly strict conditions on parole, which served to fuel his perception that he was being harassed and tormented by CV. The respondent’s concerns were further supported by the initial application for an ISO, leading to his absconding to NSW. When the ITS was made, the respondent incorporated this into his ‘problematic belief system’.
25	Dr Godfredson opined:
From the outset of [the respondent’s] placement at Rivergum, there was little to no prospect of modifying the narrative that he adopted to explain his predicament. Indeed, [he] perceived staff at Rivergum were agents of Corrections Victoria whose mandate was to elicit pre-determined responses and otherwise antagonise him. Despite his assumptions, [the respondent] remained committed to complying with his obligations. It is inconsequential whether that compliance reflected an intention to position himself as beyond reproach to diminish the justification of further ‘abuse’. 
26	Dr Godfredson dealt in some detail with the treatment gains made by the respondent, including his improved insight into his psychological functioning including the processes related to his prior offending, his application to practising adaptive strategies for regulating difficult emotions, and his improved ability to inhibit impulsive reactions and remove himself from interpersonal conflict. He also noted, on the other hand, that the current presentation of the respondent includes odd behaviours, fluctuations in mood and expressions of hostility which are a function of the respondent’s fixed belief system. 
27	Dr Godfredson stated:
Although [the respondent] has not yet generalised any treatment gains to a community setting, there is evidence of him applying treatment concepts in different aspects of the Rivergum model. Furthermore, it is my opinion that [his] treatment gains reflect the limit of his capacity to benefit from the intensive phase of treatment. Therefore, the best course of action may be to usher [the respondent] through the reintegration phase with a view to exiting him from the program upon expiry of the ITS condition. 
28	He went on to opine:
On the one hand, [the respondent] is in a worse position than he was prior to his release on parole. He is currently estranged from his brother, who provided accommodation and employment. He is also estranged from his ex-wife and son, who offered limited support. Furthermore, the abscond attracted significant media attention. On the other hand, [the respondent] has achieved treatment gains that would never have been possible in a community setting. Given that [the respondent’s] risk was primarily underpinned by ‘long-term psychological vulnerabilities’, his progress warrants a reduction in his risk status.
The relevant stakeholders are faced with a considerable dilemma: Conditions which are supposed to decrease [the respondent’s] risk of reoffending may well have the opposite effect. In my opinion, a critical component of managing [his] risk status is to minimise his exposure to stress. In that regard, there is an extremely delicate balance between devising conditions which promote [the respondent’s] rehabilitation and not overwhelming his capacity to cope.
29	Dr Godfredson went on to emphasise the importance of tailoring future risk management strategies with a view to limiting the respondent’s exposure to stress. 
30	In addressing the matters required to be considered by s 270(1) of the Act, Dr Godfredson repeated his view that the respondent’s past sexual and non-sexual violent offending was underpinned by a similar set of risk factors including stress and poor coping, emotional dysregulation, and poor behavioural controls in the context of alcohol intoxication. These factors are related to pervasive personality difficulties. The net effect of all of the relevant factors is ‘a risk for controlled aggression and extreme violence which is altogether disproportionate to any real threat’.
31	Dr Godfredson continued:
Future sexual offences are most likely to occur in the context of poor coping, emotional dysregulation, and alcohol intoxication. Although I have hypothesised subjective provocation to be a precipitating factor, it is important (sic) emphasise that such triggers might not occur in the realms of observable experience. The victim is likely to be an adult female, including an associate or someone he has recently met. The offence would likely commence with a sudden expression of anger and violence, which may render the victim unconscious. [The respondent] might then vaginally rape the victim including the commission of expressive violence far greater than required to further any sexual act. The ensuing injuries may be life threatening. Following the offence, [the respondent] is likely to pose a high risk of harm to himself and others.
32	Turning to the risk of future violent offending, Dr Godfredson opined:
[The respondent’s] risk of a committing another schedule 2 violence offence has been assessed as moderate and is underpinned by a similar constellation of risk factors for his risk of committing sexual violence. The first broad scenario pertains to the risk of causing serious injury intentionally or recklessly to further the commission of sexual violence.
The second broad scenario pertains to the risk of non-sexual violence in the context of perceived provocation. The risk would be elevated in the context of stress and difficulty coping, emotional instability, cumulative feelings of resentment, and alcohol intoxication. [The respondent] spends much of his time ruminating over perceived persecution. Therefore, rumination should not be construed as an indicator of imminent risk. Any future violence may be impulsive and may not be associated with particular warning signs. In light of [the respondent’s] prior convictions for weapons-related offences in addition to having inflicted life-threatening injuries, there is the potential for violence causing serious harm and/or death. Fortunately, there have been no instances of serious violence in the absence of alcohol intoxication.
33	Near the end of the progress report, Dr Godfredson set out a number of factors which in his view might increase or decrease the respondent’s risk of reoffending. 
34	In conclusion, in response to the requirements of s 270(2) of the Act, Dr Godfredson indicated that he had assessed the respondent as posing a moderate risk of committing a serious sex offence or a serious violence offence were he to be in the community and not subject to a supervision order. 
Victim’s submission
35	Pursuant to s 134(2) of the Act, a person who is a victim of the offender may make a submission to the Court for consideration by the Court in relation to an application for an ISO under Part 4 of the Act. 
36	The respondent’s victim has previously provided a submission for the purposes of the past applications. The Court was provided with that material. On the present application, Mr Joel Jeremiejczyk, the Victorian Victims Register Coordinator, appeared on behalf of the victim. He confirmed that the victim submission previously provided was relied upon again. He confirmed the wish of the victim that the submission not be shared with the respondent. I can indicate that I have taken the submission into account. I directed that the submission not be released to the respondent.
The applicant’s submissions
37	The submissions on behalf of the Secretary were contained in the written outline of submissions and the oral submissions of Mr Holdenson. 
38	The application proceeded on the basis, indicated at the outset of the hearing by Mr Holdenson, that the applicant would not be seeking either an ITS condition or the imposition of electronic monitoring should an ISO be made or the SO be renewed. 
39	Mr Holdenson took the Court through a chronology of events leading up to the present time. It was noted that the ITS condition would expire on 7 November 2021, following which, should an ISO not be made, the respondent would be discharged from Rivergum into the community, still bound by the conditions of the SO, including the electronic monitoring condition.
40	The ISO was sought on the basis that the respondent posed an unacceptable risk of committing a serious sex offence and a serious violence offence. The commencement date sought by the applicant was 7 November 2021, to circumvent the requirement for electronic monitoring which would otherwise be required between that date and the expiry date of the SO.
41	Mr Holdenson took the Court through the criteria for the making of an ISO. In respect of whether it would be in the public interest to make an ISO, Mr Holdenson indicated that the reason why the SO will have expired before the application for renewal is determined was because subpoenas issued on behalf of the respondent had been of such a scope as to make compliance time consuming and to result in a large amount of material being produced to the Court which would take the respondent a considerable time to review.
42	As for other matters upon which the applicant placed reliance in the public interest requirement, Mr Holdenson pointed to: 
i.	the magnitude of risk apparent from the opinions expressed by Dr Godfredson coupled with the nature, gravity and consequences of harm that may eventuate should the risk of future re-offending materialise;
ii.	the fact that the respondent would not otherwise be monitored, supervised or supported on the expiry of the SO; and 
iii.	the primary purpose of the Act being to provide for enhanced protection of the community by requiring certain offenders who present an unacceptable risk of harm to the community to be subject to ongoing supervision.
43	Turning to s 47(1)(b), Mr Holdenson noted that the effect of the drafting of the provision relieves the Secretary of the requirement to prove the case in the same way as would be required on the hearing of the renewal itself. He described the ISO as a form of interlocutory relief for which an explanation was provided in the explanatory memorandum to the bill which preceded the Act. The explanatory memorandum stated:
This standard is lower than that required for making a supervision order and is similar to the standard that judges are accustomed to applying on applications for interlocutory injunctions when orders are made quickly and without a full trial of fact.
44	Mr Holdenson took the Court in some detail through the progress report, highlighting a number of passages upon which reliance was placed, in the context of the report as a whole. I will not detail the passages here, but note that I have of course read the report and a number of the passages were set out earlier in this judgment. 
45	It would be correct to observe that in his submissions to me, Mr Holdenson acknowledged that there is much to be said for what the respondent has been able to achieve at Rivergum.
46	It was the submission of the applicant that in light of Dr Godfredson’s assessment that the respondent is a moderate risk of committing a serious sex and/or serious violence offence, and having regard to the abhorrent nature of the likely re-offending scenario identified, the Court could be satisfied that the documents relied upon in support of the application would, if proved, justify the renewal of the SO. 
47	It was further submitted that I should be satisfied that it was in the public interest to make the ISO, for reasons outlined in the written and oral submissions. It was also submitted that I should exercise my discretion in favour of making the ISO. 
48	In respect of the respondent’s application for a non-publication order, that application was opposed by the Secretary on the basis of the respondent’s previous breach of the SO and the ISO. Mr Holdenson fairly noted that the same submission had been made by the Secretary when the matter was subject to review by Champion J on 9 July 2021. The submission was rejected by the Court and Mr Holdenson indicated that nothing had arisen since that time upon which he could rely in advancing the submission. 
The respondent’s submissions
49	The respondent challenged the admissibility of the progress report and other material relied on by the applicant on the basis that much of the material underpinning and included in the progress report was derived from answers given by the respondent to questions by persons in authority. Relying on the principles set out in criminal cases as to the admissibility of confessions or admissions, the respondent submitted that the material should be excluded on the basis that the answers of the respondent were not voluntary. In making this submission, the respondent equated the seriousness of the position facing him with that faced by accused persons in criminal cases. 
50	The above submission was made notwithstanding the fact that the respondent made it clear that he did not wish to challenge Dr Godfredson’s report at that time because, as he put it, ‘I think it’s pretty fair’. At one point, the respondent seemingly took issue with the admissibility of a previous report which had had the effect of leading to him being placed in Rivergum. 
51	Next, the respondent relied on the sentencing principle of totality in arguing that the combination of the sentence of imprisonment he had received from Champion J and the two years he has spent in Rivergum with the loss of liberty incumbent in that resulted in an overall period which was manifestly excessive. Placing him on an ISO would entail another burden upon him which could not be justified. The respondent asserted that his time in Rivergum should be viewed as being punishment.
52	In addition, the respondent submitted that having been convicted and punished by the Court for the offences under the Crimes Act 1958 of rape and ICSI in 2003, it was inappropriate that he continue to be punished under a different statutory regime for the same conduct.
53	The respondent then turned to the case formulation contained at [201] of the progress report, and in particular, the part referring to his ‘lifelong sensitivity to real and imagined slights, suspicion regarding others’ motives, and a tendency to believe that people are testing or antagonising him’. In that connection, the respondent detailed an incident he said had occurred some weeks earlier in respect of his tracking device in which he claimed he was unnecessarily woken in the middle of the night as his device was not working. He submitted that such events make it difficult for him to be treated by CV. He referred to an earlier letter he had written to the Parole Board indicating such conduct from CV to be a regular occurrence.
54	The respondent went as far as to submit that such harassment was what led him to abscond in 2018. He submitted that were an ISO to be made, there would be nothing to stop him from being similarly unfairly dealt with in future. 
55	In respect of the indication in the progress report at [74] that the brother of the respondent is hostile towards him and wants him to remain in custody indefinitely, the respondent referred to the contents of a letter he claimed to have received from the brother in which no such sentiments are expressed. 
56	In reference to the recommendation by Dr Godfredson at [226] that it would be desirable for the respondent to have established links with a psychologist in the community prior to his transition, and that he should obtain a mental health care plan to facilitate this, the respondent indicated that he had obtained a mental health care plan, and had already had one session with a private psychologist. 
57	In respect of the factors which Dr Godfredson indicated in his report might decrease the respondent’s risk of reoffending, the respondent indicated that a number of the matters in the list would be in hand, making the point that he has an offer of employment, but that the employment would not be possible should he be placed on an ISO. He would thereby be placed under financial duress, as he put it. 
58	As the respondent put it, ‘it comes down to the totality of the punishment that I’ve suffered: how much is enough?’ He questioned the value of an ISO if he had everything in place which had been recommended by Dr Godfredson to decrease risk. It would, he submitted, serve no purpose other than to punish him further. Indeed, he implied that the making of an ISO would actually increase the risk he poses. 
The applicant’s submissions in reply
59	In reply, Mr Holdenson submitted that the sentencing principle of totality has nothing to do with orders under the Act, which do not act as either convictions or sentences. The proceeding on foot is civil in nature, and the purpose for which an ISO may be made is protective, and does not concern the imposition of punishment. On that score, Mr Holdenson referred to what was said by the High Court in Minister for Home Affairs v Benbrika at [41]. 
60	In respect of the respondent’s submission as to voluntariness, and his reliance on cases in that regard, Mr Holdenson submitted that the rule concerning the admissibility of confessions in criminal cases has no application. 
61	As to the respondent’s complaint about having been unnecessarily woken up, Mr Holdenson questioned the relevance of this matter to any consideration under s 47 of the Act. 
62	Insofar as the respondent had maintained that the making of an ISO would mean that he would be unable to work, Mr Holdenson did not accept the proposition. As for the respondent’s contention that the recommendations by Dr Godfredson in [239] are already in place, Mr Holdenson submitted that the respondent was not yet in the community at the time of the hearing, and has no established track record on those scores. 
Analysis
63	The respondent was an eligible offender as required by s 47(1) of the Act, by virtue of being subject to a SO at the time.
64	At the time, an application for renewal under s 22 had been commenced, and I was satisfied that the SO would have expired before the application under s 22 had been determined, for the reasons advanced by the applicant. 
65	Section 47(1)(b) of the Act requires the Court to consider the threshold for the renewal of a SO. That threshold is contained within s 14. As submitted by Mr Holdenson, the Secretary was relieved in the application for the ISO of the requirement to prove the case in the same way as would be required on the hearing of the renewal itself. What was necessary to be established was that the documents in support of the application under s 22 would, if proved, justify the renewal of the SO. On that score, the comprehensive report of Dr Godfredson was the principal material relied upon. 
66	One of the things relied upon by the respondent in his opposition to the making of the ISO was the principle in criminal cases limiting the admissibility of confessions to those which are voluntary. By analogy, he submitted that much of the material relied upon by the Secretary should be viewed as being inadmissible, having been derived as a result of questioning of the respondent by persons in authority. I mean no disrespect to the respondent to observe that his reliance upon that principle is misguided, because this is not a criminal case, and there is nothing to indicate that the cases relied upon would have any application to the current proceeding, which is civil in nature. 
67	Another central matter relied upon by the respondent was the contention that the totality principle which applies in sentencing for criminal offences applies by analogy in this case. With all due respect to the respondent, I accept the submission of Mr Holdenson that the principle of totality has nothing to do with the orders made under the Act, including the ISO which was sought before me. The making of an ISO is the outcome of a civil proceeding, involving neither a conviction nor a sentence, and has no punitive element to it. The totality principle applies to the passing of sentences for criminal offending. 
68	Insofar as the respondent asserted that it would be inappropriate for him to continue to be punished under a different statutory regime for offences in respect of which he was punished by the Court under the Crimes Act 1958 in 2003, the focus of proceedings under the Act, as already noted, is not on punishment. The primary purpose of the Act is to provide for enhanced protection of the community in certain circumstances. The secondary purpose is to facilitate the treatment and rehabilitation of offenders. There is no element of punishment.
69	Whilst it was pleasing to note that the respondent had made some progress during the course of his time at Rivergum on the ITS condition, which had, according to Dr Godfredson, warranted a modest reduction in his risk status, he still, according to Dr Godfredson, posed a moderate risk of committing a serious sex offence or a serious violence offence were he to be in the community and not subject to a SO. Bearing in mind the very serious nature of the index offending, and the concerning nature of the reoffending scenario posited by Dr Godfredson, I was satisfied that the documents in support of the renewal application under s 22 would, if proved, justify the renewal of the SO.
70	I was also satisfied that it would be in the public interest to make an ISO. Furthermore, on considering the discretion required to be considered by me by virtue of s 47(3) of the Act, I determined that it would be appropriate for an ISO to be made in the terms sought. 
71	As for the application for a non-publication order pursuant to s 279 of the Act, having considered what was said before me on the matter, and taking into account the previous conclusion of Champion J on the matter, I was prepared to make an order in the terms sought by the respondent. 
Conclusion
72	On 20 December 2021, I made the interim supervision order as sought by the applicant. This order remains in force until determination of the application for a supervision order, but for a period not exceeding four months unless extended pursuant to s 58(1)(a) of the Act. I note that the order included, under the heading, Other Orders, an order under s 279 of the Act prohibiting publication of the identity of the respondent or his address.