AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
Court of Criminal Appeal 20 May 2026

SLD v R

[2026] NSWCCA 58

Public order & justice offences

Citation: [2026] NSWCCA 58
Court: Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW)
Date: 20 May 2026
Judge(s): Stern JA, Huggett J, Boulten J

Background

The applicant, referred to as SLD, is a high risk violent offender subject to a five-year extended supervision order (ESO) imposed by the Supreme Court in 2023 under the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW). Condition 30 of the ESO prohibited him from "associating" with anyone he knew or reasonably should have known was under 18, subject to limited exceptions.

In 2024, SLD faced a judge-alone trial in the District Court on three counts of breaching this requirement, arising from his conduct at Bulli Beach on 24 October 2023. On that occasion, he approached several women, at least three of whom had small children in their care. His habit was to approach women to ask them on dates, a practice his supervising officer had observed firsthand and which was not itself prohibited.

The trial judge acquitted SLD on counts 1 and 3 but convicted him on count 2, sentencing him to 1 year and 6 months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 1 year and 1 month. SLD applied for leave to appeal his conviction on the sole ground that the verdict was unreasonable.

  • Whether the trial judge's finding that SLD "associated" with a child, within the meaning of condition 30 of the ESO, was reasonably open on the evidence.
  • What the term "associate" means in the context of condition 30, having regard to the ESO's own definition of the word (which includes, but is not limited to, being in company with or communicating by any means).
  • Whether the applicable principles for unreasonable verdict appeals, as established in M v The Queen, Dansie v The Queen, and subsequent authorities, warranted overturning the conviction.

Decision

Boulten J (with Stern JA and Huggett J agreeing) granted leave to appeal but dismissed the appeal. The court's first task was to construe the meaning of "associate" as used in condition 30. The ESO defined "associate" broadly: it "includes, but is not limited to, being in company with, or to communicate by any means." The court found that the word's true meaning was to be ascertained according to ordinary rules of construction, citing Australian Consolidated Press Ltd v Morgan.

On the unreasonable verdict ground, the court applied the well-established framework from M v The Queen, as refined by Filippou v The Queen, Dansie v The Queen, and consolidated by this Court in Slattery v R. The central question was whether, on an independent assessment of the whole of the evidence, it was open to the trial judge to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of guilt. This standard applied equally in judge-alone trials.

Having considered the terms of condition 30 in light of its context and purpose, the court concluded that it was well open on the evidence to infer that SLD associated with a child. The applicant's interaction with the woman referred to as "Ms A," who had a child or children in her care, supplied a sufficient evidentiary foundation. The conviction was neither unreasonable nor contrary to the evidence.

The court noted that, because the prosecution case was largely based on uncontested evidence and the nature of the issues was narrow, the trial judge's advantage in seeing and hearing the evidence was relevant but limited. Nonetheless, no reasonable doubt arose that would warrant disturbing the verdict.

Orders Made

  • Leave to appeal against conviction was granted.
  • The appeal against conviction was dismissed.

Key Takeaways

  • The definition of "associate" in an ESO is not confined to deliberate, sustained interaction; where the ESO defines "associate" to include, but not be limited to, being in company with or communicating by any means, the term can capture conduct beyond direct communication with a child.
  • In construing terms within an ESO, the Court of Criminal Appeal applied ordinary rules of construction, considering the word in context and in light of the order's protective purpose.
  • A conviction based on a broad, inclusive definition of "associate" was upheld even where the applicant's primary purpose was to approach adult women, not children, provided the evidence supported a finding that association with a child occurred.
  • The unreasonable verdict principles from M v The Queen, Dansie, Filippou, and Slattery apply identically whether the trial was by jury or judge alone, although the weight of the trial judge's advantage in seeing and hearing evidence varies depending on the form of the evidence and the issues at trial.
  • No separate appeal against sentence was pursued, and the sentence of 1 year and 6 months' imprisonment (with a 1 year and 1 month non-parole period) was undisturbed.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), ss 3, 5B, 9, 12
- Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), ss 5, 6

Cases:
- Australian Consolidated Press Ltd v Morgan (1965) 112 CLR 483; [1965] HCA 21
- CIC Insurance Ltd v Bankstown Football Club Ltd (1997) 187 CLR 384; [1997] HCA 2
- Dansie v The Queen (2022) 274 CLR 651; [2022] HCA 25
- Filippou v The Queen (2015) 256 CLR 47; [2015] HCA 29
- M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63
- MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53
- Pell v The Queen (2020) 268 CLR 123; [2020] HCA 12
- Slattery v R [2023] NSWCCA 117
- State of New South Wales v SLD (Final) [2023] NSWSC 978
- Henderson v Harvey [2026] NSWCA 56
- SAS Trustee Corp v Miles (2018) 265 CLR 137; [2018] HCA 55
- TAL Life Ltd v Shuetrim (2016) 91 NSWLR 439; [2016] NSWCA 68
- Bathurst Real Estate Ltd v Fairbrother [2022] NSWSC 351