AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
Supreme Court 10 August 2007

ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES v QUINN

[2007] NSWSC 873

Sexual offences
CRIMINAL LAW S.17(3) OF THE ACT

Citation: Attorney General for the State of New South Wales v Quinn [2007] NSWSC 873
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales (Common Law Division)
Date: 10 August 2007
Judge(s): Hall J

Background

The Attorney General applied under the Crimes (Serious Sex Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) for orders to continue the detention of the defendant, a serious sex offender, beyond the expiry of his sentence. Interim detention orders had been made from May 2007, with several extensions granted while the matter was prepared for a final hearing over four days in July 2007.

The plaintiff sought a five-year continuing detention order as the primary form of final relief, or alternatively an extended supervision order. The defendant opposed the making of any continuing detention order.

  • Whether the defendant satisfied the statutory threshold under s.17(3) of the Crimes (Serious Sex Offenders) Act 2006 — specifically, whether there was an unacceptable risk that he was "likely" to commit a further serious sex offence if not detained under a continuing detention order
  • The correct construction of the word "likely" in s.17(3) of the Act, including the standard of probability required
  • What form of final order was appropriate given the evidence, including competing expert assessments of reoffending risk

Decision

Three categories of expert evidence were before the court: statistical actuarial risk assessments based on static factors, an individualised psychological assessment, and individualised assessments from three psychiatrists. The court considered reports and oral evidence from a registered forensic psychologist retained by the plaintiff, two court-appointed psychiatrists, and a psychiatrist retained by the defendant.

Hall J followed and applied Bell J's earlier construction of s.17(3) in Attorney General for New South Wales v Tillman [2007] NSWSC 605. That decision addressed the meaning of "likely" in the statutory test, and Hall J adopted the same approach without departing from it. The judgment does not reproduce the full reasoning on construction from the provided text, but the test was treated as requiring more than mere possibility while not demanding certainty.

Although the plaintiff sought a five-year order, the court was satisfied on the evidence that a one-year continuing detention order was appropriate. Hall J also made a series of recommendations directed at the defendant's rehabilitation and preparation for eventual release, noting that rehabilitation is one of the stated objects of the Act. Those recommendations covered psychiatric assessment, a supervised treatment program, and the development of a management plan for release.

Orders Made

  • The defendant is to be detained in a correctional centre for one year from 10 August 2007, pursuant to s.17(1) of the Crimes (Serious Sex Offenders) Act 2006
  • A warrant for the committal of the defendant to a correctional centre for the duration of that continuing detention order was issued pursuant to s.20(1) of the Act

Key Takeaways

  • Hall J confirmed and applied Bell J's construction of s.17(3) of the Crimes (Serious Sex Offenders) Act 2006 from Tillman [2007] NSWSC 605, treating that judgment as authoritative on the meaning of "likely" to commit a further serious sex offence
  • A continuing detention order of one year was made despite the plaintiff seeking five years, reflecting the court's assessment of what the evidence warranted rather than automatic acceptance of the relief sought
  • Expert evidence in proceedings under the Act appropriately divides into three distinct categories: actuarial/statistical risk assessment, individualised psychological assessment, and individualised psychiatric assessment
  • The Act's rehabilitative objects are not merely incidental: Hall J made substantive recommendations for treatment, supervised programming, and release planning, and noted these recommendations were contingent on the defendant's willingness to participate
  • Rehabilitation of the offender and protection of the community operate as shared objectives of the NSW Act and comparable interstate legislation, a consideration the court treated as relevant to the exercise of discretion in framing final orders

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes (Serious Sex Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), especially ss.15, 16, 17, 20, 25
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
- Serious Sex Offenders' Monitoring Act 2005 (Vic)
- Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW)

Cases:
- Attorney General for New South Wales v Tillman [2007] NSWSC 605
- Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales v Gallagher [2006] NSWSC 340
- Attorney General for the State of NSW v Quinn [2007] NSWSC 456 (earlier interim decision in the same matter)
- Boughey v The Queen (1986) 161 CLR 10
- CIC Insurance Limited v Bankstown Football Club Limited (1997) 187 CLR 384
- Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355
- TSL v The Secretary to the Department of Justice [2006] VSCA 199
- Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales v Baldock [2007] NSWCA 35
- Mustac v Medical Board of Western Australia [2007] WASC 128
- Regina v Abbrederis [1981] 1 NSWLR 530
- La Macchia v Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (1992) 110 CLR 201