State of NSW v Leddin (Preliminary) [2022] NSWSC 1112

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: State of NSW v Leddin (Preliminary) [2022] NSWSC 1112 Hearing dates: 31 May 2022 Date of orders: 7 June 2022 Decision date: 07 June 2022 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Bellew J Decision: (1) The proceedings are dismissed. (2) The plaintiff is to pay the defendant's costs as agreed or assessed. Catchwords: HIGH RISK OFFENDER – Serious sex offending – Defendant already released to parole – Interim supervision order sought – Significant progress made by the defendant both prior to and since his release on parole – Court could not be satisfied that the defendant posed an unacceptable risk of committing another serious offence if not kept under supervision – Proceedings dismissed – Costs order made in favour of the defendant Legislation Cited: Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) Cases Cited: 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 Kamm (Final) [2016] NSWSC 1 Category: Principal judgment Parties: State of New South Wales – Plaintiff Shane Joseph Leddin– Defendant Representation: Counsel: A Brown – Plaintiff E Kerkyasharian – Defendant

Solicitors: NSW Crown Solicitor's Office– Plaintiff Legal Aid NSW – Defendant File Number(s): 2022/77951 Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

INTRODUCTION 1. By a summons filed on 18 March 2022, the plaintiff seeks various orders pursuant to the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) (the Act). For present purposes, the relevant orders sought are those in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the summons which are in the following terms: 1. an order pursuant to s 7(4) of the Act: 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 by date to be fixed by the Court; and 2. directing the defendant to attend those examinations; 1. an order: 1. pursuant to s10A of the Act, that the defendant be subject to an interim supervision order ("the interim supervision order"); 2. pursuant to s10C(1) of the Act, that the interim supervision order be for a period of 28 days, commencing from 00:00, on 8 June 2022; and 3. pursuant to s11 of the Act, directing that the defendant, for the period of the interim supervision order, comply with the conditions as set out in the Schedule to this Summons. 1. The plaintiff relied upon the following affidavits in support of the orders sought, which were opposed by the defendant: 1. Jessica Van Lieven of 17 March 2022; 2. Jessica Van Lieven of 24 May 2022; and 3. Samuel Ardasinski of 19 May 2022. 1. The orders sought were opposed by the defendant. 2. Counsel for the defendant accepted that the relevant statutory pre-conditions were satisfied. Specifically, it was accepted that: 1. the defendant is an "offender" for the purposes of the Act; 2. he is a "supervised offender" given that he was, until 8 June 2022, serving a sentence of imprisonment for a serious offence, namely an offence of aggravated sexual assault, which is a serious sex offence; and 3. the application had been made by the plaintiff within 9 months of the expiration of the defendant's current custody or supervision.