In this case, Nettle J of the Victorian Court of Appeal considered the scope and operation of s 32(1) of the Victorian Charter of Human Rights, which provides that ‘so far as it is possible to do so consistently with their purpose, all statutory provisions must be interpreted in a way that is compatible with human rights’.
Pursuant to s 32(1), Nettle J determined that the term ‘likely’ in s 11 of the Serious Sex Offenders Monitoring Act 2005 (Vic), which provides that a court may make an ‘extended supervision order’ in respect of an offender if satisfied to a high degree of probability that the offender is likely to re-offend, should be interpreted to mean ‘at least more likely than not’.
