State of New South Wales v Colb (Final) [2023] NSWSC 969

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: State of New South Wales v Colb (Final) [2023] NSWSC 969 Hearing dates: 15 August 2023 Date of orders: 15 August 2023 Decision date: 18 August 2023 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Weinstein J Decision: See [56] Catchwords: HIGH RISK OFFENDER – application for extended supervision order – dispute about scheduling conditions – conditions agreed upon – extended supervision order imposed Legislation Cited: Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 Cases Cited: Cornwall v Attorney-General for New South Wales [2007] NSWCA 374 State of New South Wales v Colb (Preliminary) [2023] NSWSC 471 State of New South Wales v Payton [2020] NSWSC 1707 State of NSW v Wilkinson (Preliminary) [2020] NSWSC 1813 Category: Principal judgment Parties: State of New South Wales (plaintiff) Grant Colb (defendant) Representation: Counsel: K Heath (plaintiff) D Bhutani (defendant)

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor's Office (plaintiff) Legal Aid Commission (defendant) File Number(s): 2023/74585 Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT 1. By Amended Summons, the plaintiff State of New South Wales sought final orders for an Extended Supervision Order (ESO) against the defendant, Grant Colb pursuant to ss 5B and 9(1)(a) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (the HRO Act) for a period of three years, and for an order pursuant to s 11 of the HRO Act that Mr Colb comply with conditions as set out in the Schedule to the Amended Summons. 2. On 28 April 2023, I conducted a preliminary hearing in this matter pursuant to s 7(3) of the HRO Act and made orders on that day imposing an ISO with conditions: see State of New South Wales v Colb (Preliminary) [2023] NSWSC 471 (the preliminary judgment). On 26 June 2023, Yehia J renewed the ISO for a further 28 days commencing 1 July 2023. Mr Colb has been in custody since 6 July 2023 for allegedly breaching the conditions of the ISO. 3. On 15 August 2023, there was a final hearing after which I made the final orders sought in the Amended Summons. In the end, the only dispute was as to the drafting of the conditions requiring the defendant to submit and adhere to a schedule of movements about which the parties eventually agreed. I am grateful to both Ms Heath who appeared on behalf of the State, and Mr Bhutani on behalf of Mr Colb for the collaborative manner in which they approached these proceedings.