Citation: [2018] NSWSC 27
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 23 January 2018
Judge(s): Lonergan J
Background
The State of New South Wales brought proceedings under the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 seeking ongoing supervision of a defendant with convictions for both murder and sexual assault. A preliminary hearing had taken place on 12 December 2017, after which Schmidt J made an interim supervision order for 28 days commencing 1 January 2018. The final hearing was listed for 20 March 2018.
With the initial interim order due to expire on 28 January 2018, the matter returned to court for consideration of whether a further interim supervision order should be made to bridge the gap until the final hearing. The parties had agreed on proposed orders set out in Short Minutes of Order.
Legal Issues
- Whether a further interim supervision order under the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 was appropriate pending the final hearing
- Whether the court, conducting its own independent assessment, was satisfied that the threshold for renewal of an interim supervision order was met
Decision
Issue: Renewal of Interim Supervision Order
Lonergan J noted that the Act required her to make her own independent determination as to whether a further interim supervision order was appropriate, rather than simply adopting the earlier decision (at [3]). She drew on the reasoning of Schmidt J in the December 2017 judgment, particularly the analysis of the defendant's history and the risk he presented (at [3]).
The court considered the sentencing remarks relating to both the murder and sexual assault convictions, as well as expert risk assessment reports from Mr Ardasinski and Mr Flatley (at [4]). Satisfied that the materials supported a further order, Lonergan J accepted the agreed Short Minutes of Order proposed by the parties (at [5]-[6]).
Orders Made
- The interim supervision order made on 15 December 2017 (commencing 1 January 2018 and expiring 28 January 2018) was renewed under s 10C(2) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 for a further 28 days commencing 29 January 2018 and expiring 25 February 2018
- The defendant was directed under s 11 of the Act to comply with the conditions set out in the 15 December 2017 orders for the duration of the renewed order
- The proceedings were listed on 20 February 2018 at 10:00 AM for hearing of a further renewal application
- Liberty to apply was granted to the parties on two days' notice
Key Takeaways
- Under the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006, a judge hearing an application to renew an interim supervision order must conduct an independent assessment of whether renewal is appropriate, rather than simply adopting the reasoning of an earlier judicial officer (at [3]).
- Sentencing remarks from the original convictions and expert risk assessment reports constitute relevant evidence informing the court's satisfaction that an interim supervision order should continue (at [4]).
- Agreed Short Minutes of Order between the parties do not relieve the court of its obligation to independently assess whether the statutory preconditions for a further interim supervision order are met (at [3]-[6]).
- Interim supervision orders under this Act are made in sequential, time-limited increments pending the final hearing, with the proceedings returning to court periodically for further assessment.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation
- Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 s 10A
Cases
- The State of New South Wales v Lee [2017] NSWSC 1766