ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA v ANTHONY PAUL DOBSON [2026] SASC 35

Applicant: ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA Counsel: MS J LAKE - Solicitor: CROWN SOLICITOR (SA) Respondent: ANTHONY PAUL DOBSON Counsel: MS E WHISH-WILSON - Solicitor: JON LISTER Hearing Date/s: 06/03/2026 File No/s: SCCRM-26-007831 A 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. ATTORNEY-GENERAL (SA) v DOBSON [2026] SASC 35 Decision of the Honourable Justice Gray (ex tempore) 6 March 2026 CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING TO TERRORISM - CONTROL, EXTENDED SUPERVISION, PREVENTATIVE DETENTION AND CONTINUING DETENTION ORDERS CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - POST-CUSTODIAL ORDERS - OTHER TYPES OF POST-CUSTODIAL ORDERS By application dated 24 February 2026, the Attorney-General seeks an extended supervision order under section 7(1) of the Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA) for the respondent, with a head sentence expiring on 10 March 2026. The respondent held membership of the South Australian Men’s Health Club, an organisational front for the National Social Network (NSN)/ European Australian Movement (EAM), from mid-2018 to 2021, having joined antipodean resistance (an Australian Neo Nazi Group) in his final year of high school. On 16 August 2024, the respondent was sentenced for the offence of possessing a document or record containing information of a kind likely to be of practical use to a person committing or preparing a terrorist act. The respondent was also sentenced in respect of three counts of possessing extremist material. The Attorney-General relied upon three matters to indicate that the respondent is an appreciable risk to the safety of the community: (1) the threat posed by National Racist Violence Extremist (‘NRVE’) ideology, and by groups promoting such views, to the safety of the community in publicly promoting discrimination, racism, and hatred; (2) the seriousness of the offences; and (3) the respondent’s personal circumstances. The respondent contends that for the last two years and nine months he has been subject to home detention supervision/monitoring conditions and has largely complied with those conditions. The respondent identifies that the home detention and parole conditions have been targeted to, inter alia, prevent and detect any association between the respondent and NRVE ideology. -- 1 of 14 -- Held, declining to make an interim supervision order: 1. In considering, inter alia, material of the threat posed by NRVE ideology to the safety of the community, the seriousness of the offending, and the personal circumstances and mental health difficulties of the respondent, the material supporting the application would not, if proved, justify the making of an extended supervision order. The material put forward by the applicant, including letters from the Department for Correctional Services and the Parole Board, did not show any association of the respondent with such ideology, or groups associated with such ideology, since 2021. [48]-[50], [52] 2. An appreciable risk to the safety of the community is a risk that is capable of being estimated, perceptible and sensible. A risk that is speculative, to the point of being hypothetical, will not generally be considered an appreciable risk. This assessment requires a realistic and pragmatic approach to the evaluation of the individual’s circumstances, which must be made based upon the material available before the Court at the time of the assessment. [45], [51] Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 83CA; Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA) ss 3, 4, 5, 5A, 7(1), 7(2), 7(5), 7(6), 9, 9(1), 9(2), 10; Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Regulations 2015 (SA) regs 3A(1)(b), 4; Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA) s 37, referred to. Attorney-General (SA) v Grosser [2016] SASC 49, applied. Attorney-General (SA) v RM [2022] SASC 160; Cromb v The King; Pay v The King [2024] SASCA 8, considered. -- 2 of 14 -- ATTORNEY-GENERAL (SA) v DOBSON [2026] SASC 35 1 GRAY J (ex tempore): On 16 August 2024, the respondent Anthony Paul Dobson, was sentenced in respect of a contravention of s 83CA(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA). This is the offence of possessing a document or record containing information of a kind likely to be of practical use to a person committing or preparing a terrorist act. The respondent was also sentenced in respect of three counts of possessing extremist material contrary to s 37 of the Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA). In addition, the respondent was sentenced for one count of breaching bail. 2 By application filed 24 February 2026, the Attorney-General has applied for an Extended Supervision Order under s 7(1) of the Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA) (‘the Act’). The applicant seeks the following orders: 1. That the Court direct one prescribed health professional to examine the Respondent and report to the Court with an assessment of whether there is a likelihood of the Respondent committing a terrorist offence, or otherwise being involved in a terrorist act, or committing a serious offence of violence. 2. That the Respondent be subject to an Extended Supervision Order for a period of up to five (5) years. 3. That the Applicant is granted leave to provide a copy of the medical report ordered by the Court to the Parole. Board, the Department for Correctional Services and any other service or agency engaged with the Respondent from time to time. 4. That the Respondent be subject to an Interim Supervision Order until the Application for an Extended Supervision Order is determined. 5. The parties have liberty to apply at short notice. 3 The following material was before the Court on this application: 1. An affidavit of Ms Julie-Anne Lake dated 23 February 2026 (FDN 2). 2. An affidavit of Ms Julie-Anne Lake dated 2 March 2026 (FDN 5). 3. The sentencing remarks of his Honour Judge Burnett dated 21 February 2023, in respect of a Mr Patrick Patmore. 4. The sentencing remarks of her Honour Judge Tracey dated 2 June 2023, in respect of Mr Jackson Trevor Pay and Mr Duncan Robert Cromb. 5. The affidavit of Ms Eleanor Whish-Wilson dated 2 March 2026 (FDN 8). -- 3 of 14 -- [2026] SASC 35 Gray J 2 6. A letter to the Crown Solicitors Office from Ms E F Nelson KC, Presiding Member of the Parole Board of South Australia dated 3 March 2026. 7. A minute to the Parole Board from a Senior Case Manager of the Port Adelaide Community Corrections Centre and the Area Manager of the Port Adelaide Community Corrections Centre dated 3 July 2025. 4 This matter came before the Court on Wednesday 4 March 2026 and was listed for argument on 6 March 2026. The reason for the urgent listing of this matter and the need for the matter to be addressed expediently was brought about by reason of the application not being brought by the Attorney-General until 24 February 2026. The timing of the application also means that this matter needs to be decided on the available material and, as the applicant acknowledged in submissions today, the court does not have the benefit of a s 7 report. 5 The head sentence in respect of the respondent will expire on 10 March 2026, that being the relevant expiry date pursuant to the provisions of the Act. Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA) 6 The object of the Act is to provide the means to protect the community from being exposed to an appreciable risk of harm posed by various serious offenders.1 The Act provides that the Attorney-General may make an application to this Court for an extended supervision order for a person who is a high-risk offender.2 An application for an extended supervision order may only be made within 12 months of the relevant expiry date, being, in respect of the respondent in this matter, 10 March 2026.3 7 The paramount mandatory consideration in determining whether to make an extended supervision order is the safety of the community.4 Pursuant to s 7(4) of the Act, this Court may order that a respondent be subject to an extended supervision order if the Court is satisfied that a respondent is a high-risk offender and poses an appreciable risk to the safety of the community if not supervised under the order.5 8 In Attorney-General (SA) v Grosser,6 Stanley J (as his Honour then was) held that an appreciable risk is:7 … one that is capable of being estimated, perceptible and sensible. Necessarily, a risk must be anticipatory. An appreciable risk is a risk that is not purely speculative. It is founded in some evidence that provides a substantive basis for an apprehension that the respondent 1 Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA), s 3. 2 Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA), s 7. 3 Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA), s 4, and s 7(2). 4 Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA), s 7(5). 5 Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA), s 7(4). 6 [2016] SASC 49. 7 Ibid, at [29]. -- 4 of 14 -- [2026] SASC 35 Gray J 3 might conduct himself in [the] future in a manner that poses a risk to the safety of the community. It is a question of degree… 9 A high-risk offender is defined in s 5 of the Act to mean, inter alia, a terror suspect who is serving a sentence of imprisonment.8 Section 5A defines a terror suspect, inter alia, to include a person who “has ever been convicted of a terrorist offence”.9 A “terrorist offence” is relevantly defined to include “an offence of the kind prescribed by regulations”.10 10 The offence of possess extremist material, contrary to s 37 of the Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA), is a terrorist offence as prescribed by the Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Regulations 2015 (SA). The respondent was sentenced to a term of imprisonment, and it is not in dispute between the parties that the respondent is a high-risk offender. In addition, a contravention of s 83CA of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) is also a terrorist offence as prescribed by the regulations, being an offence in Part 3D of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA).11 11 Before determining whether to make an extended supervision order, the Court must direct that one or more legally qualified medical practitioners examine the respondent and report to the Court on the results of the examination including, in the case of the respondent, an assessment of the likelihood of the respondent committing a terrorist act, or otherwise being involved in a terrorist act, or committing a serious offence of violence.12 12 Section 7(6) of the Act sets out the matters that this Court must take into consideration in determining whether to make an extended supervision order. 13 The conditions that apply in respect of a supervision order are contained in s 10(1) of the Act. 14 Section 9 of the Act concerns the making of an interim supervision order. An interim supervision order may be made if an application for an extended supervision order has been made in respect of a high-risk offender and the Court is satisfied of two criteria.13 The two criteria are: 1. The Court must be satisfied that the relevant expiry date for the respondent is likely to occur before the application for the extended supervision order is determined. 8 Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA), s 5(f). 9 Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA), s 5A(1)(b). 10 Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA), s 4. 11 Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Regulations 2015 (SA), r 3A(1)(b). 12 Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA), s 7(3). 13 Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA), s 9(1). -- 5 of 14 -- [2026] SASC 35 Gray J 4 2. The Court must be satisfied that the matters alleged in the material supporting the application for the extended supervision order would, if proved, justify the making of an extended supervision order. 15 An interim supervision order takes effect on the making of the order until the application for the extended supervision order is determined.14 16 It is not in dispute between the parties that the relevant expiry date for the respondent is likely to occur before the application for the extended supervision order is determined. The applicant’s submissions 17 The applicant relied upon three matters as indicating that the respondent is an appreciable risk to the safety of the community. These are: 1. The threat posed by the National Racist Violence Extremist (‘NRVE’) ideology, and groups promoting such views. 2 The seriousness of the offence. 3. The personal circumstances of the respondent. The threat posed by NRVE ideology 18 The applicant contends that National Racist Violence Extremist (‘NRVE’) ideology and groups promoting such views pose a clear threat to the safety of the community.15 19 The applicant contends that during November and December 2025, the National Socialist Network (‘NSN’)/European Australian Movement (‘EAM’) members rebranded to White Australia and on 13 January 2026 White Australia/NSN publicly announced their disbandment. Police continue to monitor the members of the group as although they have publicly disbanded, the members still hold a NRVE ideology.16 20 The applicant contends that the respondent was a core member with the South Australian NSN/EAM group acting through the organisational front South Australian Men’s Health Club (‘SAMHC’) to recruit and indoctrinate young white males into the group. The respondent acknowledged membership of SAMHC and NSN from mid-2018 to 2021, having joined antipodean resistance (an Australian Neo Nazi Group) in his final year of high school. 21 The applicant points to other members of the SAMHC being arrested at the relevant time to include Mr Duncan Cromb, Mr Jackson Pay, Mr Reece Brooks 14 Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA), s 9(2). 15 Written Submissions of the Applicant (FDN 6), at [15]. 16 Ibid, at [18]. -- 6 of 14 -- [2026] SASC 35 Gray J 5 and Mr Patrick Patmore. The applicant refers at length to the sentences received by Mr Cromb, Mr Pay, Mr Brooks and Mr Patmore. 22 The applicant asserts that groups espousing and promoting NRVE ideology such as NSN/EAM pose a risk to the safety of the community. SAHMC is said by the applicant to be the South Australian branch of NSN/EAM. The group is said to be organised to actively and publicly promote discrimination, racism and violence. The organisation is said to have targeted, recruited and indoctrinated young men in this State into its ranks. The respondent is said to have been a core member of the group. The applicant contends that individuals within that organisation had access to and an interest in weapons and manufacturing weapons. The group is also said to have had knowledge and capability to commit a basic attack in South Australia. The applicant submits that NSN/EAM groups still pose an appreciable risk to the safety of the community.17 The seriousness of the offence 23 The applicant also relies upon the seriousness of the offences of which the respondent was convicted. The respondent points to the seriousness of the offending having been accepted by the Court of Appeal in Cromb v The King; Pay v The King.18 The applicant points to the Court of Appeal having found that the offences involved material, which can be characterised as being terrorist material, having the potential to be very harmful and such offences need to be treated seriously. The applicant points to and relies upon the following statement of the Court of Appeal:19 The circumstances of possession are important and inform the risk that the material might have become available to someone else. There was a real risk of the documents becoming available to someone open to being radicalised, including to violence. The material was possessed by persons who held, or had held, leadership positions in white supremacist groups, the purpose of which was to attract members and radicalise them. Personal circumstances 24 The applicant also points to the respondent’s personal circumstances namely that the respondent was released on parole on 14 April 2024. The respondent had a traumatic and abusive childhood and was raised within the strict and regimented doctrines of a fundamentalist church. The respondent suffered social isolation and had limited support during his childhood and adolescent years.20 25 The applicant also points to the respondent having commenced abusing alcohol from age 18 and, from that time, having drunk spirits on a daily basis, although the applicant acknowledges that the respondent claims to have ceased 17 Written Submissions of the Applicant (FDN 6), at [25]. 18 [2024] SASCA 8. 19 Cromb v The King; Pay v The King [2024] SASCA 8, at [101] 20 Written Submissions of the Applicant (FDN 6), at [30]-[31]. -- 7 of 14 -- [2026] SASC 35 Gray J 6 drinking at about the time police attended in April 2021.21 The applicant also points to the respondent having scored above the average threshold for suspected Autism Spectrum Disorder (‘ASD’) in areas of circumstantial interests, social relatedness and social problems, and to have met the criteria for a formal assessment of ASD.22 26 In addition, the applicant notes that the respondent has struggled with intermittent depression and suicidal ideation. It is noted that the respondent remains vulnerable to transient reactive states and mental health difficulties. The applicant points to the respondent’s personal need for a sense of belonging and social acceptance as underpinning his involvement with Neo Nazi ideologies. 27 The applicant notes that the report of Dr Lim referred to in Judge Soulio’s remarks, although it indicated a positive prognosis, that view was premised on the respondent remaining committed to personal and psychological rehabilitation, with ongoing professional intervention being recommended. The applicant notes that whilst Department of Correctional Services has withdrawn its referral in respect of the making of an extended supervision order, the Department of Correctional Services report does note that the respondent’s engagement with support has been superficial and inconsistent. 28 The applicant outlines the concerns as being in the following way: … there is a concern that should [the respondent] not be subject to supervision his psychological profile history is such that the respondent will again subscribe to NSN/EAM ideology and re-offend. There is a real concern that if the respondent is not supervised, he will disengage from personal and psychological rehabilitation. 29 The applicant goes on to state:23 The serious nature and circumstances of the offending, the respondent’s interest in white supremist ideology (2018 to at least 2021), the respondent’s psychological profile and need for ongoing personal and psychological rehabilitation with professional intervention raise an appreciable risk to the safety of the community if the respondent is not subject to an order. Certainly, the matters allege (if proved) would justify the making of an ESO. The respondent’s submissions 30 The respondent points to three matters which indicate that the respondent does not pose an appreciable risk, these are: 1. The procedural history of the matter and the amount of time that the respondent has been subject to home detention supervision or monitoring type conditions. 21 Sentencing Remarks of Judge Soulio dated 16 August 2024: see Affidavit of Julie-Anne Lake dated 23 February 2026 (FDN 2), Exhibit JAL-1 at 7. 22 Ibid, at 6-7. 23 Written Submissions of the Applicant (FDN 6), at [37]. -- 8 of 14 -- [2026] SASC 35 Gray J 7 2. There is no appreciable risk as at the relevant time being the today’s date when the Court must make an assessment pursuant to s 9 of the Act. 3. There is evidence which suggests that the respondent does not pose an appreciable risk. Procedural history 31 On 30 October 2021, the respondent was arrested for the possession of documents on 7 April 2021. He was remanded in custody from 30 October 2021 to 21 June 2023, a period of one year, seven months and 22 days. On 21 June 2023, the respondent was released on home detention bail and then on 16 August 2024 the District Court sentenced the respondent to a home detention sentence of one year, six months and 23 days, with a non-parole period of six months. On 14 April 2025, the respondent was released on parole with conditions which included electronic monitoring and curfew conditions. 32 In short, the respondent contends that for about the last two years and nine months, the respondent has been subject to home detention supervision and or monitoring type conditions and the respondent has largely complied with those conditions. One significant exception to compliance is the breach of bail occurred on 6 February 2024. This breach related to the respondent downloading social media platforms including Discord, Instagram, Reddit and Twitter. Although it was not suggested that the respondent’s engagement with materials on those platforms constituted new offending, using those platforms was in direct breach of a condition of the bail agreement by which the respondent had agreed to limited access to the internet. The offending was regarded as a serious bail breach.24 Appreciable risk as of today’s date 33 The respondent submits that the material before the Court, if proved, would not justify the making of an extended supervision order. In other words, the respondent submits that the materials relied on by the applicant does not establish that the respondent as of today’s date poses an appreciable risk to the community. 34 The respondent points out that an appreciable risk, in this context, is one that is capable of being estimated, perceptible and not one that is merely speculative.25 The respondent points to Judge Soulio’s sentencing remarks as being comprehensive and addressing all of the matters upon which the applicant relies as justifying the applicant’s application for an extended supervision order. The respondent points to his Honour’s acceptance of the respondent’s denunciation of extremist beliefs previously held as providing one of the bases for the sentencing of imprisonment to be served on home detention. 24 Sentencing Remarks of Judge Soulio dated 16 August 2024: see Affidavit of Julie-Anne Lake dated 23 February 2026 (FDN 2), Exhibit JAL-1 at 5. 25 Attorney-General (SA) v Grosser [2016] SASC 49. -- 9 of 14 -- [2026] SASC 35 Gray J 8 35 The respondent further identifies that the various affidavits upon which the applicant relies provide the Court with historical information, and contemporaneous information about the NRVE ideology in Australia. However, the respondent indicates that material identifies no contemporaneous connection between NRVE and the respondent. The respondent points to there being no evidence that the respondent has had any connection to NRVE since 2021. The respondent also points to information from the Department of Correctional Services indicating that the respondent no longer aligns with those beliefs.26 36 The respondent further notes that on 12 November 2025, the Department of Correctional Services withdrew its support for the making of an extended supervision order on the basis that the respondent had been supervised in the community since 2023 and he had not re-offended. He had also been linked with a number of community case services and was being case managed by Community Corrections. The Department also observed the respondent had a pro-social relationship with a partner and had commenced further education. 37 The respondent identifies that the conditions of home detention bail, the home detention sentence order, and the conditions of parole have all been targeted to, inter alia, prevent and detect any association between the respondent and NRVE ideology. The respondent points to no concerns being raised in that regard throughout the time that the respondent has been on home detention supervision or monitoring type conditions. As I have indicated above, that is a time period of some two years and nine months. Evidence that the respondent does not pose an appreciable risk 38 The respondent also points to a number of reports including a comprehensive psychological report from Dr Lim, which was prepared after Dr Lim had reviewed existing medical and psychological material concerning the respondent. Dr Lim is said to have spent approximately eight to 12 hours over eight sessions with the respondent between 2022 and 2024, before writing her report. She opined that the respondent met the criteria for Autism Spectrum Disorder. She did not believe he had developed a personality disorder, and she disagreed with the opinions of the psychiatrist who had reviewed him in custody that he had developed borderline or narcissistic personality traits. Dr Lim was of the view that his prospect for rehabilitation was enhanced by the absence of a personality disorder. 39 Dr Lim concluded that the respondent was at low risk of engaging in extremist acts or re-offending at the current time and in the foreseeable future. Dr Lim did not believe that he represented a risk or danger to the public in 2024. Dr Lim opined that the respondent’s rehabilitation would be aided by ongoing psychological therapy sessions. The respondent has seen Dr Ben Steward, a psychologist, on 20 occasions since 2024 with ongoing fortnightly sessions planned into the future. 26 Affidavit of Julie-Anne Lake dated 2 March 2026 (FDN 5), Exhibits JLA-5 and JLA-7. -- 10 of 14 -- [2026] SASC 35 Gray J 9 Consideration 40 There is no opposition to the application by the Attorney-General for an order that the Court direct a legally qualified medical practitioner (to be nominated by the prescribed authority) examine the respondent and report to the Court on the results of the examination.27 I make that order. 41 The matters that I have to decide are firstly, whether an interim supervision order should be made, and if so, the terms of such an order. 42 Whether an interim order should be made is to be determined by reference to s 9(1) of the Act. Section 9(1) confers power upon the Court to make an interim order if two conditions precedent are satisfied. The first of these is not in dispute. The parties agree that the relevant expiry date for the respondent is likely to occur before the application for the extended supervision order is determined, and I am satisfied that this criteria is established. 43 The second criteria is whether the Court is satisfied that the matters alleged in the material supporting the application for the extended supervision order, if proved, would justify the making of an extended supervision order. I have set out above the material before this Court and identified the material in support of the application for the extended supervision order. 44 The making of an extended supervision order depends upon satisfaction that the respondent is a high-risk offender, and that he poses an appreciable risk to the safety of the community if not supervised under such an order.28 There is no issue that Mr Dobson is a high-risk offender, and I make that finding. 45 I consider that an appreciable risk is one that is capable of being estimated, perceptible and sensible.29 A risk that is speculative to the point of being hypothetical will not generally be considered to be an appreciable risk.30 In making this assessment, a realistic and pragmatic approach to assessing the circumstances of the individual under consideration should be made.31 46 Assessing the evidence before me, at this stage of the proceedings, I am not satisfied that the matters alleged in the material supporting the application for the extended supervision order would, if proved, justify the making of an extended supervision order. 27 Pursuant to regulation 4 of the Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Regulations 2015 (SA), the prescribed authority is the person for the time being performing the duties, or acting in the position, of Clinical Director, Forensic and Mental Health Service, South Australia. 28 See further: Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA) s 7(6). 29 Attorney-General v Grosser [2016] SASC 49, at [29]. 30 Attorney-General (SA) v RM [2022] SASC 160, at [45] (McDonald J). 31 Attorney-General (SA) v RM [2022] SASC 160, at [45] (McDonald J). -- 11 of 14 -- [2026] SASC 35 Gray J 10 47 In making this finding I have considered the material before this Court and both the written submissions of the parties and the oral submissions of the applicant.32 48 I have had particular regard to the letter from the Chief Executive of the Department for Correctional Services, dated 12 November 2025 which, inter alia, provides as follows:33 Mr Dobson was instead released onto home detention bail on 16/06/2023 and remained subject to that order until he was sentenced on 16/08/2024 to a Court Ordered Home Detention Sentence of 1 year and 6 months following his convictions for Possess Document/Record of Information for Terrorist Acts, Have Possession of Extremist Material x3 and Fail to Comply with Bail Agreement. A non-parole period of 6 months was fixed. Mr Dobson was released onto parole on 14/04/2025 and his full sentence is set to end on 10/03/2026. Since his release from custody in 2023, Mr Dobson has not been returned to custody for breaching his bail, court ordered home detention sentence or parole order. While Mr Dobson was convicted for a bail act offence, he has not had any other charges or convictions for 'terror' related or other offending. Mr Dobson has been linked with a number of community-based services, most significantly Offender Aid and Rehabilitation Service Community Transitions (OARS CT), the Inclusion Support Program (ISP) through the Department for Human Services and a psychologist, while also being assertively case managed through Community Corrections. While Mr Dobson's engagement with services was considered to be somewhat superficial and inconsistent, there has been no information available to suggest that he is currently engaged with his ideological belief system. Mr Dobson has also commenced a TAFE course and established a prosocial relationship with his partner. Following further consideration of the matter, DCS have determined to withdraw the recommendation for consideration of an Extended Supervision Order for Mr Dobson. 49 I have considered the letter of the Parole Board of South Australia dated 3 March 2026 in which Ms E F Nelson KC, opines that “[t]here is nothing in his parole period to indicate that he presents an ongoing risk to the community and the Parole Board therefore would not be prepared to support an Extended Supervision Order”. 50 I have considered the material put forward by the Attorney-General concerning the threat to the safety of the community posed by National Violence Extremist ideology and groups promoting such views. I note that the respondent acknowledged membership of such a group from mid-2018 until 2021. I have also considered the seriousness of the offending for which the applicant was sentenced. I note the personal circumstances and mental health difficulties that the respondent has encountered, and the applicant’s reliance upon the respondent’s need for a 32 Written Submissions of the Applicant filed 3 March 2026 (FDN 6) and Written Submissions of the Respondent dated 2 March 2026 (FDN 9). 33 See Affidavit of Julie-Anne Lake dated 2 March 2026 (FDN 5), Exhibit JAL-5. -- 12 of 14 -- [2026] SASC 35 Gray J 11 sense of belonging and social acceptance as underpinning his prior involvement with Neo Nazi ideologies. 51 Having considered all of the matters summarised above and the detail of the material relied upon by the applicant, I find that the matters alleged in the material supporting the application for the extended supervision order currently before me would not, if proved, justify the making of an extended supervision order. The material does not demonstrate that there is an appreciable risk34 in the sense that there is a risk that is capable of being estimated, perceptible and sensible. This assessment is made based upon the currently available material. This Court, when it ultimately considers the making of an extended supervision order, may have additional material before it, including a contemporaneous report of a qualified medical practitioner. 52 The respondent has had an association with National Violence Extremist ideology and groups promoting such views in the past. However, the material put forward by the applicant does not show any association of the respondent with such ideology, or groups associated with such ideology, since 2021. 53 The applicant has had a long period of supervision in the community. The applicant has one serious breach of bail in 2024, and one positive test for amphetamines on 11 March 2025, and a test dated 2 May 2025 which returned a “below cutoff” for amphetamine. He has engaged with a number of community-based services, most significantly Offenders Aid and Rehabilitation Service Community Transitions (‘OARS CT’), the Inclusion Support Program (‘ISP’) through the Department for Human Services and a psychologist and community corrections. I note that whilst his engagement with services was considered to be somewhat superficial and inconsistent, the information from the Department of Correctional Services indicates to the effect that there is no evidence of adherence to National Violence Extremist ideology.35 54 The assessment of risk to be undertaken must be assessed as of today’s date. 55 I find that the evidence put forward in support of the application for an extended supervision order even if proved does not provide a substantial basis for an apprehension that the respondent might conduct himself in the future in a manner that poses an appreciable risk to the safety of the community. I find even considering the matters alleged in the material in support of the extended supervision order to be proved, that the applicant does not pose an appreciable risk to the safety of the community if not supervised under a supervision order. 34 That is, an appreciable risk to the safety of the community if not supervised under a supervision order; see further Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 (SA) s 7(6). 35 See Letter from the Chief Executive of the Department for Correctional Services, dated 12 November 2025. -- 13 of 14 -- [2026] SASC 35 Gray J 12 Conclusion 56 It follows that I would order: 1. That a legally qualified medical practitioner (to be nominated by the prescribed authority) examine the respondent and report to the Court on the results of the examination, including an assessment of the likelihood of the respondent committing a terrorist offence, or otherwise being involved in a terrorist act, or committing a serious offence of violence. 2. That the report will be provided to the applicant and the respondent, and the parties have liberty to apply for further orders in relation to the parties to whom the report should be provided. 3. Order 4 sought in the Originating Application (FDN 1), that the respondent be subject to an Interim Supervision Order until the application for an Extended Supervision Order is determined, is not made. 57 I will hear the parties as to any other orders. -- 14 of 14 --