THE KING v DABBAGH [2026] SASC 60

Applicant: THE KING In Person Counsel: MS T NELSON - Solicitor: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (SA) Respondent: RACHAEL CHERIE DABBAGH In Person Counsel: MS T JOHNSON - Solicitor: LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSION (SA) Hearing Date/s: 31/03/2026 File No/s: SCCRM-26-007888 B SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA (Criminal: Application) DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court in which it was generated. THE KING v DABBAGH [2026] SASC 60 Judgment of the Honourable Justice Gray (ex tempore) 31 March 2026 CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - POST-CUSTODIAL ORDERS - OTHER TYPES OF POST-CUSTODIAL ORDERS - RELEASE ON LICENCE The respondent is subject to a life forensic supervision order after she was, in 2009, found not guilty of murder of her two-year-old son by reason of mental incompetence, pursuant to s 269F(B)(3) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) (‘CLCA’). On 16 December 2010, Duggan J made a supervision order committing the respondent to detention. On 6 February 2012, the respondent applied for a variation of the supervision order and for release on licence. On 13 April 2012, Sulan J ordered, inter alia, that the supervision order made on 16 December 2010 be revoked and there be, substituted in its place, a supervision order releasing the respondent on licence. The Director of Public Prosecutions makes an application to vary the supervision order made in respect of the respondent, pursuant to section 269P(1) of the CLCA. Held, granting the application: (1) In considering the medical report and assessment of the Forensic Mental Health Service and recent episodes of deterioration in the mental health of the respondent, the licence requires additional conditions to be attached to protect the safety of the community. The supervision order and release on licence dated 13 April 2012 is varied so that the respondent be subject to three additional conditions. [22]-[24] (2) Section 269PNI of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) emphasises that the paramount consideration to which the Court should have regard is the protection of the safety of the community. The safety of the community outweighs the principle that restrictions on the respondent's freedom and personal autonomy should be kept to a minimum. [17] Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) ss 269F(b)(3), 269NI, 269O(1)(b)(i), 269O(1)(b)(ii), 269O(2), 269P(1), referred to. -- 1 of 8 -- -- 2 of 8 -- THE KING v DABBAGH [2026] SASC 60 Criminal: Application 1 GRAY J (ex tempore): This is an application by the Director of Public Prosecutions (‘the applicant’ or ‘the Director’) to vary a Part 8A Division 4 Order for supervision made in respect of Rachael Cherie Dabbagh (‘the respondent’), pursuant to section 269P(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) (‘CLCA’). 2 The respondent is subject to a forensic supervision order for a limiting term of life (‘the limiting term’) after she was, in 2009, found not guilty of murder of her two-year-old son by reason of mental incompetence, pursuant to s 269F(B)(3) of the CLCA. Justice Duggan declared the applicant liable to supervision under Part 8A of the CLCA. 1 3 The applicant seeks that the supervision order relating to the respondent be varied to include the following additional conditions: a. That the respondent is not permitted to have anyone stay or reside within her home without the prior approval of both her Community Corrections Officer and the Forensic Mental Health Service. b. That no person is permitted to visit, stay or reside in her home who uses illicit substances (including, but not limited to cannabis, methamphetamine or excessive alcohol use). 4 Pursuant to the last Record of Outcome,2 the matter was previously called on before me and listed urgently for argument. Background and Licence History 5 On 16 December 2010, pursuant to s 269O(2) of the CLCA, the limiting term of life was fixed and a supervision order made committing the respondent to detention pursuant to s 269O(l)(b)(i) of the CLCA.3 6 On 6 February 2012, the respondent applied, pursuant to s 269P(l) of the CLCA, for variation of the supervision order and for release on licence. 7 On 13 April 2012, Sulan J ordered that inter alia the supervision order made on 16 December 2010, committing the respondent to detention, be revoked pursuant to s 269P(1) of the CLCA, and that there be, substituted in its place, a 1 Director of Public Prosecutions, ‘Originating Application for Variation of Part 8A Criminal Law Consolidation Act Order’, Submission in The King v Dabbagh, SCCRM-26-007888, 24 February 2026, 15, Exhibit B (FDN 1) (‘Originating Application’). 2 Order of Gray J in The King v Dabbagh (Supreme Court of South Australia, SCCRM-26-007888, 16 March 2026) FDN 3. 3 Originating Application (n 1). -- 3 of 8 -- [2026] SASC 60 Gray J 2 supervision order pursuant to s 269O(1)(b)(ii) of the CLCA releasing the respondent on licence.4 8 The background to this matter is that the respondent is a 42-year-old woman who lives in Pennington, in a Housing SA property with her ex-husband.5 She has previously resided in this property alone, though recently offered to accommodate her ex-husband after he lost his accommodation. She is unemployed and receives a disability support pension for a diagnosis of bipolar affective disorder (‘BPAD’). Ms Dabbagh has one adult daughter who resides in Whyalla. Ms Dabbagh’s granddaughter is in the care of Families SA and Ms Dabbagh has regular supervised visits. Ms Dabbagh is subject, as I have indicated, to a life forensic supervision order. Report and Assessment 9 The respondent was assessed by Dr Jessica Lowe, Forensic Psychiatrist, and Ms Rosemary Brickhill, Mental Health Nurse, of the Forensic Community Mental Health Service (‘Forensic Health’). 10 Following assessment, Dr Lowe and Ms Brickhill provided a report, dated 20 February 2026 to address the respondent’s recent progress in the community under her lifetime supervision order. The report outlines the perspectives of the Forensic Community Mental Health Service and the rationale for the recommended changes to the respondent’s licence conditions (‘the Report’). 11 The Report indicates the basis of Forensic Health’s concerns, which began to emerge in respect of the respondent’s mental state in early January 2025. In particular the Report provides:6 …On 15/01/25, whilst Ms Dabbagh was attending supervision at Port Adelaide Community Corrections, she showed her corrections officer some text messages that she believed were sent by an imposter, using her friends' mobile phone. Ms Dabbagh reported that she based this understanding on the emojis that were being used, as her friend never used these. Ms Dabbagh made contact with SAPOL requesting them to attend Corrections to investigate further, upon them declining this request, Ms Dabbagh then left in an Uber to attend the police station to report this officially. On the 18th January 2025, Ms Dabbagh called South Australian Ambulance Service claiming that she had murdered her neighbour. Documentation from emergency services noted that Ms Dabbagh was verbally aggressive and sounded manic during the phone call. Further contact was made with Mental Health Triage services by a friend of Ms Dabbagh's after she had sent text messages stating that she was being framed for murder and that blood had been planted in her home. In response to these contacts, emergency services responded and attended her property. Ms Dabbagh was detained and bought into the Royal Adelaide Hospital emergency department. Following a psychiatric review, she was diagnosed with a manic and psychotic 4 Originating Application (n 1) 16. 5 I will refer to Ms Dabbagh’s ex-husband as Mr AH. 6 Originating Application (n 1) 3 [3.5]-[3.8] (Exhibit A). -- 4 of 8 -- [2026] SASC 60 Gray J 3 relapse of her bipolar disorder. She claimed to have found rings of blood placed around her TV and was convinced it was planted to have her evicted from her home. Ms Dabbagh reported that she had come across other blood in the days prior and had also found a knife on the corner of Hanson and Torrens Rd which she believed had been planted. She reported picking up the knife and taking it home. Ms Dabbagh was placed under an involuntary Inpatient Treatment Order (ITO) and admitted to the Royal Adelaide Hospital Psychiatric Intensive Care Unit, and later transferred to the Glenside inpatient psychiatric unit as her mental state improved. 12 The Report also highlights the criminal history of the respondent’s ex-husband and his risk profile:7 Mr AH’s mental health clinician disclosed significant risk concerns about his management and protocols the team followed to ensure staff safety. The clinician noted that Mr AH did not engage with services and refused to accept the supports from mental health staff. In 2024 he had threated to kill a mental health nurse during a home visit to administer his medication. He is known to consume cannabis daily and has a history of amphetamine use. Mr AH has been known to carry weapons and commit assaults when suffering with paranoia and untreated psychotic symptoms. He also has a lengthy criminal history and has both threatened and inflicted violence on others (including stabbings). 13 As to the respondent’s second relapse following a deterioration in her psychiatric stability throughout 2025 and early 2026,8 the Report notes that:9 Despite Ms Dabbagh engaging in many months of forensic psychotherapy aimed at improving her insight and compliance, she suffered a further relapse in December 2025. Her second relapse again appeared precipitated by carer-related stress after Ms Dabbagh welcomed her itinerant ex-husband to live with her. Mr AH appears to have brought illicit substances into the home when he moved in and has continued using regularly while living with Ms Dabbagh. 14 The Report concludes by recommending that, to manage the respondent’s risks of relapse and reoffending, the licence be reviewed, and additional conditions be made which reflect the conditions set out in the application.10 15 The Report subsequently provides the rationale for these recommendations as follows:11 Adding the above conditions will ensure that any person residing with Ms Dabbagh does not place her at risk of exposure to, or temptation to use, illicit substances. These conditions will also ensure that people with an antisocial or harmful influence on Ms Dabbagh have limited contact. Most urgently, Ms Dabbagh cannot continue to accommodate her ex-husband, Mr Ahmed Dabbagh in her home. If she is unwilling or unable to evict him from her property, or adhere with the above suggested licence conditions, the Forensic Service will consider 7 Originating Application (n 1) 7 [3.32] (Exhibit A). 8 Originating Application (n 1) 7 [4.2] (Exhibit A). 9 Originating Application (n 1) 7-8 [4.4] (Exhibit A). 10 Originating Application (n 1) 9 [4.12.1]-[4.12.2] (Exhibit A). 11 Originating Application (n 1) 9 [4.13]-[4.14] (Exhibit A). -- 5 of 8 -- [2026] SASC 60 Gray J 4 making a recommendation for a revocation of her forensic licence to ensure her risks are safely managed and the community is not placed at risk. (emphasis in original) Consideration 16 Section 269P of the CLCA provides: (1) At any time during the limiting term, the court may, on the application of the Crown, the defendant, Parole Board, the Public Advocate, the Commissioner for Victims' Rights or another person with a proper interest in the matter, vary or revoke a supervision order. (1a) On an application under subsection (1), the court may do 1 or more of the following: (a) confirm the present terms of the supervision order; (b) vary the terms of the order; (c) revoke the order and make in substitution for the order any other order that the court might have made under this Subdivision in the first instance; (d) make any further order or direction that may be appropriate in the circumstances. (2) If the court refuses an application by or on behalf of a defendant for variation or revocation of a supervision order, a later application for variation or revocation of the order cannot be made by or on behalf of the defendant for six months or such greater or lesser period as the court may direct on refusing the application. 17 Importantly, s 269NI emphasises that the paramount consideration to which I should have regard is the protection of the safety of the community.12 I also note that the safety of the community outweighs the principle that restrictions on the respondent's freedom and personal autonomy should be kept to a minimum.13 I have had regard to the report of Ms Brickhill and Dr Lowe dated 20 February 2026, which is Exhibit A to the Originating Application.14 18 During the course of submissions, I provided the parties with the opportunity to make submissions on three redrafted conditions, which reflect the substance of the proposed conditions but potentially provide additional clarity as to what is permitted, and were drafted having regard to the paramount consideration being the safety of the community. I refer to these conditions as the three redrafted conditions.15 19 The Director submits that the redrafted conditions are appropriate and required to protect the community. The Director submits that Condition 1, concerning permission being required for someone else to reside at the home, 12 Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 269NI(1). 13 Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 269NI(2). 14 Originating Application (n 1). 15 Conditions 1-3 appear in paragraph [24] of this Judgment. -- 6 of 8 -- [2026] SASC 60 Gray J 5 should include a requirement for approval by Forensic Health and the community corrections officer. 20 The respondent submits that the redrafted additional Conditions 2 and 3 are not opposed but that Condition 1 is opposed on the basis that the respondent submits that Ms Dabbagh and her ex-husband, although no longer married, continue to provide mutual support to each other. 21 The respondent also submits that if a condition is to be imposed requiring approval for someone to reside at the respondent's home then the appropriate person to provide that approval is the community corrections officer, having regard to the provisions of s 269NG(3) of the CLCA, which divides the supervisory responsibilities to be exercised by the Minister, being those insofar as they relate to treating or monitoring the mental health of the person, and the supervisory responsibilities in all other respects to be exercised by the Parole Board. The respondent submits that the community corrections officer is, in these circumstances, a delegate of the Parole Board. 22 Having considered the reports, and the recent episodes of deterioration in the mental health of the respondent, in my view the licence requires additional conditions to be attached as a measure to protect the safety of the community. I have considered the careful submissions made by the respondent’s counsel concerning the respondent’s stabilisation, and I note that the respondent’s acceptance of the redrafted Conditions 2 and 3 suggest that the acute deterioration may have been somewhat addressed. Giving particular regard to the legislative requirement that paramount consideration must be given to the safety of the community, and noting, as I have indicated in these reasons, that there are a number of significant concerns that arise from the episodes of deterioration that have occurred, I consider, weighing these matters, that it is appropriate to impose the three additional conditions. I do note in doing so that the statutory scheme does provide for a process of review by the respondent. If there was a period of stability the respondent could engage in that process of review. However, assessing the matter as I must, on the information before me at this point in time, I consider that the statutory requirements and the evidence before me indicates that the additional conditions should be imposed. 23 It follows that the additional conditions that I impose are: • Condition 1: The respondent must obtain the approval of the community corrections officer before permitting any person to stay overnight or reside at the respondent’s address. • Condition 2: No person who visits, stays overnight, or resides at the respondent's address is permitted, whilst at the home address, to drink alcohol or use illicit substances, including but not limited to cannabis and methamphetamine. -- 7 of 8 -- [2026] SASC 60 Gray J 6 • Condition 3: The respondent must permit entry to her place of residence by the community corrections officer for the purposes of ensuring compliance with the terms of this order, including but not limited to inspecting the residence for evidence of alcohol or drug use, the presence of alcohol, drugs, and any other illicit substance. 24 It follows that I have, in making these orders, had regard to the additional submissions made by the parties concerning the operation of s 269NG of the CLCA. Orders 25 It follows that the orders of this Court are: 1. The application of the Director is granted. 2. The supervision order and release on licence dated 13 April 2012, imposed on file SCCRM-12-25, is varied so that the respondent remain on that licence subject to the three redrafted conditions indicated in paragraph [24] above. -- 8 of 8 --