Supreme Court: After the BNSS, a Pre-Cognizance Hearing is Mandatory in PMLA Cases  ||  SC: Landowners Cannot be Forced to Waive Statutory Compensation to Claim Other Benefits  ||  Supreme Court: Banks are Lenient With Big Borrowers But Strict With Ordinary Loan Applicants  ||  Delhi HC: Minimum Wages During Pending Litigation Cannot be Frozen and Must be Updated Periodically  ||  Kerala HC: ICC Can Probe Sexual Harassment Complaint Against a Director Not Controlling Affairs  ||  Delhi HC: Interim Protection From Blacklisting Does Not Remove Bidder’s Duty to Disclose in Tenders  ||  Allahabad HC: After the BNSS, Pre-Cognizance Hearing of the Accused is Mandatory in NDPS Complaints  ||  Delhi HC: Husband Cannot Avoid Maintenance For Wife and Children by Claiming Irregular Income  ||  SC: Repeated Anticipatory Bail Pleas Abuse Process and Reduce Litigation to a Gamble  ||  Supreme Court: State Officers Cannot Back Litigants Through Affidavits Against the Law    

The State OF Western Australia vs. Hapke - (25 Feb 2022)

It is necessary to make a restriction order, when Court is satisfied that, a person is a high risk serious offender

Criminal

In present case, On 25 November 2021, the State of Western Australia applied for a restriction order in respect of the Respondent, Jason Guy Hapke, under the High Risk Serious Offenders Act, 2020. The main purpose of the preliminary hearing is to decide whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that the court might find the Respondent is a high risk serious offender.

A ‘high risk serious offender’ is a person in relation to whom the court is satisfied by acceptable and cogent evidence and to a high degree of probability, that it is necessary to make a restriction order in relation to, in order to ensure adequate protection of the community against an unacceptable risk that the person will commit a serious offence.

A serious offence includes armed robbery and causing grievous bodily harm. It is sufficient at this stage of proceedings, if there are reasonable grounds for believing that an order might be made. To say that something might occur is to say that it is possible. Further, belief is an inclination of mind toward assenting to rather than rejecting a proposition. For there to be reasonable grounds for belief, requires the existence of facts which are sufficient to induce that state of mind in a reasonable person.

There are reasonable grounds to believe that, a court might find the Respondent to be a high-risk serious offender. The Respondent has a significant history of violent offending. He has previously been assessed as being at high risk of re-offending in a violent manner. Some of the factors contributing to that risk, such as personality type, are unlikely to have changed. However, the Respondent has undertaken programs that may have benefit him in controlling his anger and drug use. On the basis of the Respondent’s offending history and the previous assessments of his reoffending risks, there are reasonable grounds to believe that a court might find that, he is a high risk serious offender.

The Respondent is the subject of a pending proceeding. Whilst he is currently in custody, his current sentence is due to expire on 26 February 2022. Given the Respondent’s high risk of serious offending and the likely nature of such offending, the need to ensure adequate protection of the community pending determination of the proceedings requires, that an interim supervision order be made in the terms of the proposed draft.

Tags : PROTECTION   COMMUNITY   HIGH-RISK OFFENDER  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved