State of New South Wales v Robert John Dennis

[2016] NSWSC 1114

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	State of New South Wales v Robert John Dennis [2016] NSWSC 1114
Hearing dates:	09 August 2016
Decision date:	09 August 2016
Jurisdiction:	Common Law
Before:	N Adams J
Decision:	(1) The time for service of this motion be abridged. (2) Pursuant to s 10C of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 the interim supervision order made by the court on 14 July 2016 be renewed for a further period of 28 days from 12 am on 10 August 2016. (3) I grant liberty to the parties to apply on one day’s notice.
Catchwords:	CIVIL LAW – application for extension of interim supervision order – by consent – orders made in terms of consent orders
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), ss 6, 10A, 10C(2), 11
Cases Cited:	State of New South Wales v Robert John Dennis [2016] NSWSC 993
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	State of New South Wales (Plaintiff) Robert John Dennis (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: R Giurastante (Plaintiff)   Solicitors: NSW Crown Solicitor (Plaintiff)
File Number(s):	2016/00191378
Publication restriction:	Nil

EX TEMPORE Judgment

1. On 14 July 2016 Beech-Jones J made an order under s 10A of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) that the defendant be subject to an interim supervision order (“ISO”) for a period of 28 days from 14 July 2016: see State of New South Wales v Robert John Dennis [2016] NSWSC 993.

2. Pursuant to s 11 of the Act, the defendant is required to comply with conditions set out in a schedule dated 14 July 2016 during the period of the ISO. The 28 day period of the ISO expires tomorrow, 10 August 2016.

3. By Notice of Motion filed on 5 August 2016 the plaintiff seeks an order pursuant to s 10C(2) of the Act that the ISO made on 14 July 2016 be renewed for a further period of 28 days to take effect from 12am on 10 August 2016 and expire at 4pm on 6 September 2016. The plaintiff further seeks an order pursuant to s 10C(2) of the Act that for the period of the interim supervision order as renewed the defendant is to comply with the conditions in the schedule to the orders made on 14 July 2016.

4. The orders are not opposed by the defendant. Despite this it is still necessary for me to come to an independent view that the statutory tests are satisfied. The relevant test under the Act for the making of an ISO is set out in s 10A which provides that the Court may make an order for the interim supervision of an offender if, in proceedings for an extended supervision order, it appears to the Court that the offender’s current custody or supervision will expire before the proceedings are determined and that the matters alleged in the supporting documentation would, if proved, justify the making of a high risk sex offender extended supervision order. Section 6 of the Act provides that an offender is a high risk sex offender if the offender is a sex offender and the Supreme Court is satisfied to a high degree of probability that the offender poses an unacceptable risk of committing a serious sex offence if he or she is not kept under supervision.

5. When read in conjunction, these sections provide that, before making an order for an extension of an ISO, the Court must be satisfied that the matters alleged in the documentation, if proved, would satisfy the court to a high degree of probability that Mr Dennis poses an unacceptable risk of committing a serious sex offence if he is not kept under supervision.

6. I have read the judgment of Beech-Jones J. I have not read all of the supporting material upon which his Honour based his conclusion that the statutory test was made out, but I have read a summary of the material as contained in his Honour’s judgment and I have also reviewed some of the material that was before his Honour. In particular, I have read the report from the psychologists, Ms Langton and Ms Donaldson, who are psychologists from the custody-based sex offenders’ program.

7. Having regard to that material I have come to my own independent view that the statutory test is met and hence that it is appropriate to extend the interim supervision order. In particular I have regard to the defendant’s past pattern of offending, his intellectual impairment and his initial reluctance to participate in rehabilitation programs.

8. Pursuant to s 10C of the Act the maximum duration of any ISO is 28 days from the date the order commences. Pursuant to s 10C(2) an ISO can be renewed from time to time, but not so as to provide for the supervision of the offender under such an order for periods totalling more than three months. The matter is listed for final hearing on 13 October 2016. I note that the three-month statutory maximum period for an ISO will expire the day before or the day of the final hearing.

ORDERS

9. In all the circumstances I make the following orders by consent:

1. The time for service of this motion be abridged.

2. Pursuant to s 10C of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) the interim supervision order made by the court on 14 July 2016 be renewed for a further period of 28 days from 12 am on 10 August 2016. I note that the defendant is to comply with the conditions in the schedule to the orders made on 14 July 2016 as part of the extension of that order.

3. I grant liberty to the parties to apply on one day’s notice.

**********