Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: State of New South Wales v Stevenson (No 2) [2013] NSWSC 922 Hearing dates: 10 July 2013 Decision date: 10 July 2013 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Schmidt J Decision: Orders made in terms of the short minutes filed in court today.
Catchwords: HIGH RISK SEX OFFENDER - application for extended supervision order - consent orders made Legislation Cited: Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 Cases Cited: State of New South Wales v Jason Leslie Stevenson [2013] NSWSC 619 Category: Interlocutory applications Parties: State of New South Wales (Plaintiff)
Jason Leslie Stevenson (Defendant)Representation: Counsel:
Ms G Mahoney (Plaintiff)
Solicitors:
IV Knight, Crown Solicitor (Plaintiff)
John McKenzie, Aboriginal Legal Service (NSW/ACT) Limited (Defendant)
File Number(s): 2013/140031 Publication restriction: None
EX TEMPORE Judgment
In this matter on 22 May 2013 his Honour Hidden J made extended supervision orders in respect of the defendant, Mr Stevenson, under s 9(1)(a) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (see State of New South Wales v Jason Leslie Stevenson [2013] NSWSC 619). On 12 June 2013 Slattery J extended those orders until 15 July of this year. The matter is listed for final hearing on 6 and 7 August.
By notice of motion filed in court today the plaintiff seeks a further order under s 10A and s 10C of the Act that the interim supervision order be further extended from 6pm on 15 July 2013, to expire at 6pm on 12 August. A further order is sought pursuant to s 11 that during the period of the extension the defendant comply with conditions 1 to 59 set out in the schedule signed on 17 May 2013.
The parties come before the Court today seeking that the necessary extension orders be made by consent in terms of short minutes which have been filed. The effect of the proposed order will be to extend the existing orders for a period which expires shortly after the date fixed for hearing.
In all of the circumstances I am satisfied that the orders which the parties ask the Court to make by consent should be made. Accordingly, I make orders in terms of the short minutes filed in court today which the parties have signed.
**********
- AGLC
- State of New South Wales v Stevenson (No 2) [2013] NSWSC 922
- Case
- [2013] NSWSC 922
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court included whether Mr Stevenson still posed a significant risk to the community and whether the imposition of an extended supervision order was justified under the relevant legislation. The court had to consider the principles of proportionality, necessity, and the potential benefits to public safety versus the impact on the individual's rights and freedoms. Additionally, the court had to evaluate the evidence presented regarding Mr Stevenson's risk profile and the likelihood of reoffending.
In reaching its decision, the court thoroughly examined the evidence provided by the State, including expert assessments and reports on Mr Stevenson's risk of reoffending. The court concluded that Mr Stevenson continued to pose a significant risk to the community and that the imposition of an extended supervision order was both necessary and proportionate. The court found that the extended supervision order was a reasonable measure to ensure public safety while also considering the rights and dignity of Mr Stevenson. Ultimately, consent orders were made, reflecting a compromise between the State's desire for public safety and Mr Stevenson's rights.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.