While I agree
I do agree with most of the comments on here that this, on the surface, doesn't look acceptable. There is a great deal of misunderstanding here though.
He was placed on trial for a crime, of which he was found "not guilty". From what I read, the crime he was accused of was rape, and it was determined that he did not rape someone. The way our law works is that you can only be found guilty of the crime you're on trial for, and a separate trial would need to be created and justified for a different crime. This is why lawyers sometimes recommend a client is tried for manslaughter early on rather than murder - the judge isn't all that free to decide at a later date.
Before, during, and after the trial he was under the scrutiny of various experts including doctors, police and judges. These people have determined that he does require some supervision. That doesn't mean they think he's guilty of the crime he was tried for. By the sound if it, it's not a specific crime either and so he can't be tried for it. Therefore there is no guilty/not guilty for what is going on right now - they just deemed him in need of supervision. Perhaps there's a discussion to be had there, although being guilty of being a deviant who will probably offend at a later date is a bit woolly even for our justice system.
It's totally unacceptable that they have now placed him in a position where he has no work, no home, and no prospects - that much is clear. I don't and can't disagree with the order because I don't know why it was required (neither do you, young commentards...) but the manner in which it has been applied is appalling. Had they done this discretely in a way that he was able to live a normal life while under supervision, and assuming they have a justification we can't see, then it would be acceptable.