[b] The legislation was closely modeled on a law passed in Victoria, the Community Protection Act 1990, which was enacted to authorise 'preventive detention' for Garry David.

[6] In early 1995, Justice Levine of the Supreme Court made an order under the Community Protection Act requiring that Kable be detained for a period of six months.

[9] The act was described by multiple justices in the majority as requiring the Supreme Court to (perform) non-judicial functions of such a nature that public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary as an institution ... is diminished'.

[c] The preventative detention of Kable under the act for reasons of anticipated criminality was enough for Toohey J to declare that the Grollo test had been met.

After the decision, Kable sought an award of damages for abuse of process, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution.

The decision has received qualified praise from TRS Allan who said that; 'despite doubtful reasoning, (it) vindicated indirectly the fundamental character of the separation of powers as an aspect of the rule of law'.

Winterton described the reasoning in Kable as 'barely even plausible'; [3] while Goldsworthy described the decision and its line of authority as lacking 'methodological rigour'; accusing the court of 'judicial statesmanship'.