NSW Caselaw
Supreme Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: State of New South Wales v Doherty (Final) [2022] NSWSC 1144 Hearing dates: 10 and 17 August 2022 Decision date: 29 August 2022 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Ierace J Decision: (1) Pursuant to s 13(1) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) the existing extended supervision order made 19 July 2019 is revoked; (2) Pursuant to ss 5B and 9(1)(a) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) the defendant be subject to an extended supervision order ("the extended supervision order") for a period of two years from the date of this order; (3) Pursuant to s 11 of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), direct that the defendant, for the period of the extended supervision order, comply with the conditions set out in the Schedule of Conditions attached to this judgment; (4) Access to the Court's file in this proceeding is restricted such that access is permitted to a non-party only with the leave of a Judge of the Court, and with prior notice to the parties, so as to allow them an opportunity to be heard in respect of the application for access. Catchwords: HIGH RISK OFFENDER – final hearing – application for extended supervision order ("ESO") – where defendant subject to ESO of 12 months duration imposed in 2019 – where 2019 ESO suspended on multiple occasions due to defendant's return to custody – where defendant charged or convicted of multiple breaches of an ESO – no controversy regarding imposition of ESO – dispute limited to duration of order and conditions imposed – discussion of appropriate length of ESO – discussion of conditions regulating use of accommodation Legislation Cited: Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), ss 3, 5B, 5D, 5I, 6, 7, 9, 10C, 11, 12 Public Health Act 2010 (NSW), s 10 Cases Cited: Doherty v R [2006] NSWCCA 133 State of New South Wales v Doherty (Final) [2019] NSWSC 920 State of New South Wales v Kaiser [2022] NSWCA 86 Category: Principal judgment Parties: State of New South Wales (Plaintiff) Stuart Doherty (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: R McEwen (Plaintiff) J Wilcox (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