Case Overview
At the Magistrate’s Court, our client was placed on a registration order under the Sexual Offenders Registration Act 2004 (Vic) (‘SORA’) with a reporting duration for 15 years. An appeal was lodged against that decision, and, on 20 May 2025, the County Court set aside the Magistrate’s orders and refused the prosecution’s application for registration.
This successful appeal relieved our client of extensive and onerous reporting obligations, which, in the event of a breach, attract further charges punishable by a maximum of five years’ imprisonment.
A brief snapshot of the Appeal and its background is outlined below.
Background
Some registrations under SORA are automatic and mandatory.
Others are only made upon application of Victoria Police or the Department of Public Prosecutions. Here, the Magistrate/Judge has discretion to make a SORA order. Our client fell into this category.
It’s worth noting that the police cannot simply apply for a discretionary order at any time they like. The offence(s) which result in a discretionary order must have harmed the sexual safety of one or more persons.
In our client’s case, the application was made in respect of “directing a sexual activity at another”. It is well settled that such an offence satisfies the harm to sexual safety criteria.
The real issue/s on the Appeal was first whether our client posed a real risk to the sexual safety of one or more persons, and second, whether SORA is appropriate in all the circumstances. If the Judge answered both in the affirmative, the SORA order would be imposed.
Discretionary application on Appeal
The following matters were addressed in written submissions and later expanded in oral argument.
Risk to the sexual safety of others
Our client had a previous offence for “direct sexual activity at another” together with several “indecent exposure” offences.
There were contextual differences between those priors and the offending before the Court. It was submitted that those differences were material and militated against the finding of a real risk of sexual reoffending beyond a reasonable doubt.
Our client also had support and services available to him upon his release from custody. That also reduced the risk.
Nevertheless, the Judge expressed a preliminary view that risk was made out. That left the Appeal hanging on whether the SORA order was appropriate.
Appropriate in all the circumstances
This question involves balancing the risk, having regard to the purpose of the act, against the restrictions imposed on our client’s rights, freedom and autonomy. In this context, “risk” is assessed by reference to the magnitude of such risk, the degree of likelihood of it eventuating and the harm it would cause.
It was submitted that even if the Judge found the risk of relevant reoffending to be high, the nature and magnitude of such risk was at the low end. Our client’s indecent exposure priors were not a logical pathway to find that the magnitude of risk warranted an order.
It was helpful to stress that indeed Parliament did not intend the SORA to apply carte blanche to sexual offenders convicted in Victoria. Our client was not who Parliament envisaged when looking at reporting obligations like “report the name of every child you have contact with each day”, for example.
The Judge was persuaded.
Conclusion
A Magistrate making an order under SORA does not necessarily mark the end of the matter.
A thoroughly prepared and thoughtfully argued Appeal within time can successfully change ancillary orders like SORA upon sentence.