State of New South Wales v Colb (Preliminary) [2023] NSWSC 471

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: State of New South Wales v Colb (Preliminary) [2023] NSWSC 471 Hearing dates: 28 April 2023 Date of orders: 28 April 2023 Decision date: 05 May 2023 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Weinstein J Decision: See [58] Catchwords: HIGH RISK OFFENDERS – preliminary hearing – interim supervision orders not opposed – risk of repeat serious violence offending Legislation Cited: Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 Cases Cited: R v Grant John Colb [2006] NSWSC 811 Category: Principal judgment Parties: State of New South Wales (Plaintiff) Grant Colb (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: D New (Plaintiff) R Khalilzadeh (Defendant)

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor's Office (Plaintiff) Legal Aid NSW (Defendant) File Number(s): 2023/74585 Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT 1. On 28 April 2023, I conducted a preliminary hearing pursuant to s 7(3) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (the HRO Act). What follows are the reasons for the orders I made on that day. 2. The plaintiff, the State of New South Wales (the State), commenced proceedings by Summons filed on 2 March 2023 seeking orders that the defendant, Mr Grant Colb, be subject to an Extended Supervision Order (ESO) pursuant to ss 5B and 9(1)(a) of the HRO Act for a period of 3 years subject to conditions as set out in the Schedule to the Summons. I gave leave to the plaintiff to file in court an Amended Summons dated 27 April 2023. The only amendments were to conditions contained in the Schedule to the Summons. 3. At the preliminary hearing, the plaintiff sought only the interim and interlocutory relief as set out in prayers 1 and 2 and the ancillary order at prayer 4 of the Amended Summons as follows:- "Interim and interlocutory relief 1. An order pursuant to s 7(4) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 ("the Act"): a. Appointing two qualified psychiatrists or psychologists (or any combination of such persons) to conduct separate 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; and b. Directing the defendant to attend those examinations. 2. An order: a. pursuant to s. 10A of the Act, that the defendant be subject to an interim supervision order ("the interim supervision order") commencing 19 May 2023; b. pursuant to s. 10C(1) of the Act, that the interim supervision order be for a period of 28 days; and c. pursuant to s. 11 of the Act, directing that the defendant, for the period of the interim supervision order, comply with the conditions set out in the Schedule to this Summons. Ancillary relief 4. An order that access to the Supreme Court's 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 that 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 of access." 1. The defendant sought the following additional orders, which were consented to by the plaintiff: "1. The parties to have liberty to relist the matter on two days' notice, including but not limited to circumstances where: a. the defendant is granted bail; b. the defendant is otherwise released from custody; or c. the defendant is convicted of any further charges but is not sentenced to imprisonment by way of full-time detention. 2. Where the defendant is required to attend the examinations referred to in Order [X], and where criminal proceedings against the defendant are either still on foot or have been finalised prior to the examination for a period of 28 days or less, the practitioners conducting psychological and/or psychiatric examinations of the defendant are directed to not ask the defendant any questions about or arising from those charges and their criminal proceedings. This order does not prevent the experts referring to the fact of the charges and the allegations in their reports, if the experts consider those aspects relevant to their assessment of the defendant's risk(s)." 1. There was no opposition by the defendant to the making of an Interim Supervision Order (ISO) and the associated orders, although the defendant reserved his rights with respect to the imposition of an ESO and its conditions for the final hearing. I observe that the defendant is currently in custody, bail refused for a charge of common assault which is alleged to have occurred between 22 March 2023 and 24 March 2023. 2. Both the State and the defendant provided written submissions that addressed the proposed conditions. There was some disagreement during the course of the preliminary hearing as to the wording of some of the conditions sought. There was debate about some, but not all of them. The conditions I imposed are set out at Annexure A to this judgment. 3. I am grateful to Ms New who appeared on behalf of the State and to Ms Khalilzadeh who appeared on behalf of the defendant, for the collaborative manner in which they approached these proceedings.