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. Relevant Legal Test 1. The application I am dealing with is for an ISO. In such an application the Court is not engaged in the task of weighing up the material contained in the evidence, or else predicting the ultimate result of the State's substantive application. Rather, I need to be satisfied that the facts and matters contained within the documentation provided to the Court by the State, would, if proved, justify the making of an ISO. This is a test analogous to that which formerly applied to the determination of whether a prima facie case existed sufficient to justify the committal of a defendant to stand trial: see Attorney General for New South Wales v Kapeen bht Jenifer Thompson (Preliminary) [2018] NSWSC 619 at [16]; Attorney General for New South Wales v Tillman [2007] NSWCA 119 at [38]; State of New South Wales v Thomas (Preliminary) [2011] NSWSC 118 at [11]. 2. This test is not a stringent one: see State of New South Wales v Lynn [2013] NSWSC 1147 at [17]–[18]. It is also appropriate on this application to have regard to the objects of the Act to give weight to risk avoidance: see Attorney General for the State of New South Wales v Winters [2007] NSWSC 611 at [7]. Attitude of the Defendant 1. In written submissions, counsel for the defendant informed the Court that the defendant did not oppose the imposition of an ISO, including the conditions proposed by the State. 2. Counsel for the defendant made the following concessions for the purpose of this interlocutory application only: 1. the application was made within the time required: s 6(1) of the Act; 2. the defendant is an "offender" because he has served a term of imprisonment for a serious offence: s 4A of the Act; 3. the defendant is a "supervised offender" because he is currently serving a term of imprisonment: s 5I(2)(a) of the Act; and 4. the Court would be satisfied to the requisite standard that the defendant poses an unacceptable risk of committing another serious offence if not kept under supervision. 1. It is not in issue that the defendant's current sentence, which is being presently served on parole, expires on 14 September 2021. 2. As I have previously noted in other like matters, these proceedings are civil proceedings in which the defendant is represented by counsel. This Court is entitled to rely upon such explicit concessions, properly made by counsel, as constituting a sufficient reason to make the interlocutory orders by way of an ISO with conditions for the protection of the community. Relevant Evidence 1. In determining whether to make the orders sought by the State, I have had regard to all of the evidence put before the Court. 2. I note that the evidence establishes to my satisfaction the following matters which are encapsulated in the State's submissions: 1. the defendant has a significant history of sexual offending against children and women; 2. the defendant has a very poor history of response to supervision, including a past breach of parole and a past breach of child protection reporting obligations; 3. the defendant has a diagnosed paedophilic disorder and an antisocial personality disorder. He also has a substance abuse disorder which is presently in remission; 4. although the defendant had previously successfully completed the CUBIT program, he has, nevertheless, since offended against children; 5. the defendant has a high risk of sexually re-offending as assessed by a registered psychologist; and 6. the defendant has few, if any, family or close social supports in New South Wales to assist him upon his release at the end of his term of imprisonment. Previous Supervision Order 1. I note that in 2017, Davies J concluded that an ISO ought to be made with respect to the defendant on the material which then existed. A subsequent term of imprisonment to which the defendant was sentenced then obviated the need for any further supervision order to be made. Conclusion 1. Having regard to the material and all of the facts established, I am well-satisfied that the orders sought by the State in its summons of 7 July 2021 ought be made. Orders 1. Accordingly, I make the following orders: 1. Order pursuant to s 7(4) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006: 1. appointing two qualified psychiatrists and/or registered psychologists (or any combination of two such persons) to conduct separate psychiatric and/or psychological examinations of the defendant and to furnish reports to the Supreme Court on the results of those examinations as soon as is reasonably practicable; and 2. directing the defendant to attend those examinations. 1. Order: 1. pursuant to section 10A of the Act that the defendant be subject to an Interim Supervision Order; 2. pursuant to s 10C(1) of the Act that the Interim Supervision Order be for a period of 28 days commencing on 14 September 2021; 3. pursuant to s 11 of the Act, directing that the defendant, for the period of the Interim Supervision Order, is to comply with the conditions set out in the Schedule to the Summons filed 7 July 2021. 1. Order until further order, that access to the Supreme Court file in respect of any document shall not be granted to a non-party without the leave of a Judge of the 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. ********** DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 08 September 2021