NSW Caselaw
Supreme Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: State of New South Wales v O'Hara (Preliminary) [2021] NSWSC 1484 Hearing dates: 9 November 2021 Date of orders: 11 November 2021 Decision date: 11 November 2021 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Beech-Jones CJ at CL Decision: Accordingly, I make the following orders: (1) Pursuant to section 7(4) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (the Act): (a) Two qualified psychiatrists and/or registered psychologists (or any combination of two such persons) be appointed 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 by a date to be fixed by the court; (b) The defendant is directed to attend those examinations. (2) Pursuant to s 10A of the Act, the defendant be subject to an Interim Supervision Order from midnight on 25 November 2021, ("the Interim Supervision Order"). (3) Pursuant to s 10(C)(1) of the Act, the Interim Supervision Order be for a period of twenty eight days. (4) Pursuant to s 11 of the Act, the defendant, for the period of the Interim Supervision Order, comply with the conditions set out in the Schedule attached to the summons, save that condition 9 will refer to a curfew operating between 10pm and 6am. (5) The parties be granted liberty to apply to me on forty eight hours' notice including for the purposes of obtaining a final hearing date. Catchwords: HIGH RISK OFFENDER – preliminary hearing – no question of principle Legislation Cited: Crimes (Administration of Sentencing) Act 1999 Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 Cases Cited: Baldwin v State of New South Wales [2020] NSWCA 112 Lynn v State of New South Wales [2016] NSWCA 57 State of New South Wales v Baldwin [2019] NSWSC 1882 State of New South Wales v GJO (Final) [2020] NSWSC 1412 State of New South Wales v McGorm [2019] NSWSC 485 State of New South Wales v Mikua [2021] NSWSC 1240 Category: Principal judgment Parties: State of New South Wales (Plaintiff) Django Womack O'Hara (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: P Aitken; A Richards (Plaintiff) E Kerkyasharian; C Akthar (Defendant)
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate