State of New South Wales v Hayter (Final) [2020] NSWSC 1581

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: State of New South Wales v Hayter (Final) [2020] NSWSC 1581 Hearing dates: 27 October 2020 Date of orders: 11 November 2020 Decision date: 11 November 2020 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Johnson J Decision: (1) Pursuant to s.9(1)(a) Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006, the Defendant is subject to an extended supervision order for a period of three years, subject to Conditions 1-56 which follow as a Schedule to this judgment. (2) Pursuant to s.11 Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006, the Defendant, for the period of the extended supervision order, is to comply with the conditions set out in the Schedule to this judgment. (3) Access to the Court file in respect to any document shall not be granted to a non-party without the leave of a Judge of this Court and, if any application for access is made by a non-party in respect of any document, the parties are to be notified by the Registrar so as to allow them an opportunity to be heard in relation to the application for access. (4) For the purpose of s.10(1) and (2) Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006, the extended supervision order which the Court has made will commence when the Defendant's current custody expires and that the Defendant's obligations under the extended supervision order are suspended whilst the Defendant is in lawful custody. Catchwords: HIGH RISK OFFENDER – where Defendant does not oppose making of extended supervision order ('ESO') – Defendant has significant history of committing serious sex offences against boys under the age of 16 – Defendant diagnosed with paedophilia and hebephilia – Defendant subject to continuing detention orders and ESOs since 2007 – Defendant breached conditions of orders on many occasions – whether Court is satisfied to a high degree of probability that the Defendant poses an unacceptable risk of committing a serious offence if not kept under supervision under an ESO – consideration of factors under s.9(2) and (3) Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 – unanimous opinions of expert witnesses provide cogent foundation for the making of an ESO – ESO made for a period of three years subject to conditions Legislation Cited: Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 Crimes (Serious Sex Offenders) Act 2006 Crimes Act 1900 Cases Cited: Attorney General for the State of New South Wales v Hayter [2007] NSWSC 1146 Cornwall v Attorney General for New South Wales [2007] NSWCA 374 Lynn v State of New South Wales (2016) 91 NSWLR 636; [2016] NSWCA 57 State of New South Wales v Ali [2010] NSWSC 1045 State of New South Wales v Donovan (2015) 90 NSWLR 389; [2015] NSWCA 280 State of New South Wales v Hayter [2008] NSWSC 394 State of NSW v Hayter [2009] NSWSC 318 State of NSW v Hayter [2009] NSWSC 611 State of New South Wales v Hayter [2020] NSWSC 916 State of New South Wales v Kamm (Final) [2016] NSWSC 1 State of New South Wales v Sleeman (Preliminary) [2018] NSWSC 562 Turner v State of New South Wales (2019) 99 NSWLR 767; [2019] NSWCA 164 Wilde v State of New South Wales (2015) 249 A Crim R 65; [2015] NSWCA 28 Texts Cited: --- Category: Principal judgment Parties: State of New South Wales (Plaintiff) Warren Graeme Hayter (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: Ms D New (Plaintiff) Mr L Fernandez (Defendant)