State of New South Wales v Barlow (Final) [2022] NSWSC 1069

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: State of New South Wales v Barlow (Final) [2022] NSWSC 1069 Hearing dates: 2 August 2022 Decision date: 11 August 2022 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Button J Decision: Extended supervision order for two years imposed Catchwords: HIGH RISK OFFENDER – application for extended supervision order for three years – limited criminal record – one very significant incident of explosive violence – young Aboriginal man – incarcerated for over 8 years – successful time on parole and on interim supervision order – ESO called for – 2 years appropriate – inappropriate to impose more rigorous conditions as sought – potential to be regressive and criminogenic – continuing unacceptable risk despite positive signs – extended supervision order imposed Legislation Cited: Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) Cases Cited: State of New South Wales v Barlow (Preliminary) [2022] NSWSC 569 Category: Principal judgment Parties: State of New South Wales (Plaintiff) Charles Cameron Barlow (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: K Curry (Plaintiff) H Blake (Defendant)

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor's Office (Plaintiff) Legal Aid NSW (Defendant) File Number(s): 2022/51875 Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

Introduction 1. This judgment brings to a conclusion the proceedings brought by the State of New South Wales (the plaintiff) against Mr Charles Cameron Barlow (the defendant) pursuant to the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) (the Act). 2. In a nutshell, the plaintiff has sought a three year extended supervision order (ESO) with conditions against the defendant. The defendant, who was represented by solicitor and counsel, has not opposed the imposition of an ESO. It has been expressly conceded on his behalf that all statutory requirements for the making of such an order have been fulfilled, including the "fulcrum test" to be found in s 5B of the Act. Nor was it submitted that there was any basis upon which I would exercise my discretion not to impose such an order. 3. The only disputes between the parties requiring resolution are whether the ESO should extend for three years or, as submitted by the defendant, for no more than 18 months, and whether a handful of conditions should or should not be imposed. Having said that, of course all determinations are a matter for me. 4. The preliminary judgment in the matter was delivered by Cavanagh J, and it provides, with respect, a very useful summary of many aspects of the matter. It is available here. 5. For the reasons that follow, I accept the concession of the defendant; I agree that there is no discretionary basis for me to refuse to impose an ESO; and I am satisfied that all of the conditions that are not the subject of dispute are appropriate. In the circumstances, I shall be quite brief in resolving the disputes that remain.