State of New South Wales v Moore... [2025] NSWSC 1476

Citation: State of New South Wales v Moore (Preliminary) [2025] NSWSC 1476
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 8 December 2025
Judge(s): Rigg J

Background

The State of New South Wales applied under the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) to have the defendant, a serious violence offender, placed under an extended supervision order (ESO) upon his release from custody. The application was brought at the preliminary hearing stage, at which the court considers whether to make an interim supervision order (ISO) and order expert assessments pending a final hearing.

The defendant has a lengthy criminal history involving violent offending and an index offence of serious violence. He also has a long-standing and permanent cognitive impairment, very limited literacy skills, and a history of poor compliance with parole conditions. His whereabouts were unknown for a period between June and September 2025.

The defendant did not contest the making of an ISO or the expert assessment orders. The hearing was principally concerned with which conditions should attach to the ISO, with a number of proposed conditions disputed on the grounds of necessity, proportionality, and the defendant's capacity to comply given his cognitive impairment.

Legal Issues

Whether the statutory preconditions under section 5B(a)-(c) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 were satisfied.
Whether the supporting material would, if proved, satisfy the court to a high degree of probability that the defendant poses an unacceptable risk of committing a further serious offence if not supervised under an ESO.
Whether an ISO should be made and expert assessments ordered.
Which of the proposed ISO conditions were appropriate, necessary, and proportionate, having regard to the defendant's cognitive impairment and the identified risk factors.

Decision

Issue 1: Jurisdiction and the threshold test

The court was satisfied that the statutory preconditions in section 5B(a)-(c) of the Act were met, and the defendant conceded as much (at [39]). The defendant also accepted that the supporting material would, if proved, satisfy the threshold. Rigg J was satisfied to a high degree of probability that the defendant poses an unacceptable risk of committing a further serious offence if not kept under supervision (at [41]). The court found no discretionary reason to decline to make an ISO and accordingly ordered expert assessments and imposed the ISO (at [42]).

Issue 2: Conditions relating to behaviour towards supervision staff

The State sought a condition prohibiting threatening, intimidating, or abusive behaviour towards supervision and electronic monitoring staff. The court declined to impose it. While the defendant's history included instances of aggressive and threatening conduct, there had been markedly fewer such incidents in recent years, and existing conditions, including a requirement to accept supervision and follow directions, together with the general criminal law, were sufficient to address the risk (at [58]).

Issue 3: Electronic monitoring and schedule of movements

The court accepted the State's case for electronic monitoring, finding it necessary to ensure the defendant's whereabouts could be known at all times, given the significant difficulties that arose in supervising him previously (at [59]-[60]). However, the court rejected the proposed condition requiring the defendant to provide a weekly schedule of movements in advance. The defendant's cognitive impairment made that condition likely beyond his capacity, and other measures, including DSO guidance, were adequate to promote structure and pro-social activity (at [61]).

Issue 4: Accommodation, drug and alcohol, and association conditions

The court declined to impose a 9:00 pm to 6:00 am curfew as unnecessary given the agreed condition prohibiting overnight absence from the approved residence, but retained conditions for unannounced visits and notification of visitors (at [63]). The prohibition on entry into licensed premises was rejected as excessive given the existing drug and alcohol abstention conditions (at [64]). The requirement to attend rehabilitation programs with prior approval before discharge was imposed, as the court preferred a clear direction over leaving compliance to the defendant's initiative (at [65]). Of three proposed association conditions, only the prohibition on associating with persons known to be using illegal drugs was imposed, with the other two regarded as unnecessary or unworkable (at [67]).

Issue 5: Weapons, mobile phone, disclosure, and other conditions

The court rejected conditions prohibiting possession of firearms and other specified weapons. The defendant's violence had historically involved his own body or opportunistic objects rather than carried weapons, and the risk assessments did not identify weapon-carrying as a particular risk factor. Many of the prohibited items would also be illegal to possess in any event (at [73]). The court imposed a condition requiring the defendant to carry an approved mobile phone at all times and remain available to answer calls, finding this essential for maintaining supervision given a significant history of unreliability in contact (at [74]). Broad search powers over the defendant's person, residence, devices, and belongings were rejected as not supported by the evidence (at [77]). Healthcare-related conditions requiring notification of practitioners and compliance with medication were imposed, but the capacity to disclose the defendant's criminal history to healthcare providers was limited to situations where a DSO considers disclosure necessary to address the risk of a serious offence (at [79]).

Orders Made

Two qualified psychiatrists and/or registered psychologists appointed to conduct separate examinations of the defendant and report to the court by a date to be fixed.
The defendant directed to attend those examinations.
Interim supervision order imposed from 9 December 2025 (or the date of release from custody) for a period of 28 days, with conditions as set out in the Schedule of Conditions of Supervision.
Non-party access to the court file restricted, requiring leave of a judge of the court, with parties to be notified of any such application.

Key Takeaways

Where a defendant concedes that the statutory preconditions are met and that the supporting material would satisfy the high-degree-of-probability threshold, the Supreme Court will ordinarily make an ISO absent a specific discretionary reason to decline (at [39]-[42]).
Cognitive impairment is a material consideration in determining which conditions to attach to an ISO. The Supreme Court here declined to impose conditions, including a movements schedule and weapons prohibitions, where those conditions were found to be likely beyond the defendant's capacity or insufficiently connected to the identified risk factors (at [61], [73]).
Proposed conditions that replicate existing criminal offences or are adequately addressed by existing supervision conditions carry a higher bar for imposition. The court declined the threatening-behaviour condition and the broad search conditions on this basis (at [58], [77]).
Electronic monitoring was treated as a necessity where significant difficulties in supervising and locating the defendant had been established, even where the defendant had expressed strong objections to it (at [60]).
Under section 11(1) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006, the court retains a broad discretion to tailor ISO conditions to the specific risk profile of the offender, and conditions that are broader than necessary, invasive of privacy without adequate justification, or likely to cause stigma and impede reintegration may be refused or modified (at [69], [73]).

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Crimes (Domestic and Personal) Violence Act 2013 (NSW)
- Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)

Cases
- Not stated