State of New South Wales v Williams [2021] NSWSC 1140

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: State of New South Wales v Williams [2021] NSWSC 1140 Hearing dates: 08 September 2021 Date of orders: 08 September 2021 Decision date: 08 September 2021 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Garling J Decision: See [15] Catchwords: HIGH RISK OFFENDERS – application for an interim supervision order – no opposition by defendant - interim supervision order granted Legislation Cited: Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 Cases Cited: Attorney General for New South Wales v Kapeen bht Jenifer Thompson (Preliminary) [2018] NSWSC 619 Attorney General for New South Wales v Tillman [2007] NSWCA 119 Attorney General for the State of New South Wales v Winters [2007] NSWSC 611 State of New South Wales v Lynn [2013] NSWSC 1147 State of New South Wales v Thomas (Preliminary) [2011] NSWSC 118 Texts Cited: Not Applicable Category: Principal judgment Parties: State of New South Wales (P) Gordon Williams (D) Representation: Counsel: C Melis (P) T Edwards (D)

Solicitors: NSW Crown Solicitor (P) Legal Aid Commission of NSW (D) File Number(s): 2021/00195257 Publication restriction: Not Applicable

EX tempore Judgment 1. On 7 July 2021. the State of New South Wales ("the State") commenced proceedings against Gordon Williams ("the defendant"), claiming, by way of final relief, an order pursuant to s 5B and s 9(1)(a) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 ("the Act") that he be subject to an Extended Supervision Order ("ESO") for a period of five years. 2. The State sought interlocutory relief which included the appointment of two suitably qualified experts pursuant to s 7(4) of the Act to examine the defendant and report to the Court. As well, the State sought the imposition of an Interim Supervision Order ("ISO") for 28 days commencing on 14 September 2021. 3. This judgment deals only with the making of those interlocutory orders. 4. In light of the material tendered by the State and having regard to the attitude of the defendant by his counsel at the hearing of the interlocutory proceedings, I am satisfied for the following reasons that the orders sought by the State should be made.