Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: State of New South Wales v Morgan (Preliminary) [2024] NSWSC 892 Hearing dates: 17 July 2024 Date of orders: 26 July 2024 Decision date: 26 July 2024 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Wilson J Decision: Preliminary hearing order: expert reports (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 psychiatric and/or psychological 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) Direct the defendant to attend those examinations. Interim relief (2) An order: (a) Pursuant to s 10A of the Act, that the defendant be subject to an interim supervision order from 28 July 2024 ("the interim supervision order"); (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 these orders. (3) The matter is listed before the High Risk Offenders List judge at 10am on 1 August 2024 for directions and timetabling orders. Catchwords: HIGH RISK OFFENDER – high risk sex offender – application for extended supervision order – defendant with history of sexual offences against children and women - preliminary proceedings – without admissions dispute confined to appropriateness of some conditions Legislation Cited: Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 (NSW) Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Category: Principal judgment Parties: State of New South Wales (Plaintiff) Daryl Morgan (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: Ms D New (Plaintiff) Dr A Hughes (Defendant) Solicitors: Crown Solicitor's Office (Plaintiff) Legal Aid NSW (Defendant) File Number(s): 2024/00141423 Publication restriction: Statutory non-publication order in respect of the complainants. JUDGMENT 1. HER HONOUR: By summons filed on 16 April 2024, the State of New South Wales asks the Court to impose an extended supervision order ("ESO") upon the defendant, Daryl Morgan, for a period of five years pursuant to ss 5B and 9(1)(a) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) ("the Act"). The Preliminary Application 1. The State seeks preliminary orders pursuant to s 7(4) of the Act appointing two experts to conduct psychiatric and/or psychological examinations of the defendant and to provide reports to the Court. The State additionally seeks an interim supervision order to be imposed upon the defendant for a period of 28 days, to take effect on 28 July 2024 at the expiration of the defendant's current custodial sentence. 2. For the purposes of these preliminary proceedings the defendant concedes that he is a serious sexual and violent offender as defined by ss 5 and 5A of the Act; that he is a supervised offender for the purposes of s 5I; and that he is within the final 9 months of custody or supervision for the purposes of s 6(1). 3. Without concessions as to the ultimate disposition of the matter, the defendant does not oppose the making of the preliminary orders, on the basis that the Court is satisfied pursuant to s 10A(b) of the Act that the matters alleged in the supporting documentation would, if proved, justify the making of an ESO. The issue at the preliminary hearing was confined to the appropriateness of certain conditions of the ISO that were sought by the State. 4. For the reasons that follow, the Court is satisfied to a high degree of probability that, if proved, the material provided at this preliminary stage establishes that the defendant poses an unacceptable risk of committing a serious offence if not kept under supervision under the order the State asks the Court to impose. The Evidence 1. The State read and relied upon the affidavit of Mark McAlary, affirmed on 11 April 2024, accompanied by Ex. MM1, containing a volume of documentary evidence. The defendant did not place any evidence before the Court. 2. The following summary of the material is drawn from Ex MM1 and an agreed statement of facts, and is not controversial. 3. Since the majority of the defendant's past crimes involve sexual violence, s 578A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) prohibits the publication of any information that might identify his victims. To avoid the necessity of anonymising or restricting this judgment, the names of those persons entitled to statutory protection will be replaced with a pseudonym and, where necessary, the nature of any relationship between a victim and the defendant will be obscured. 4. The defendant, aged 69 years, is presently in custody serving the balance of parole of an aggregate sentence. The sentence expires on 28 July 2024. Separately, he has been remanded in custody with respect to charges of possessing bestiality material. These charges were preferred on 13 December 2023 and led to the revocation of parole, with the defendant now serving the balance of that term. The fresh matters are listed for committal on 30 July 2024. 5. The defendant has a long criminal history that commenced in 1969 and has been continuous since that time. Relevant History 1. On 23 February 1976 the defendant was convicted of carnal knowledge, although no details about this offending are available, other than the age of the girl involved, being 13 years. 2. On 18 July 1987, at around 11 pm, the defendant sexually assaulted a woman known to him, Ms A. Ms A was in bed and awoke to the defendant sitting on top of her with his legs on either side of her. The defendant covered Ms A's face with bedding and pinned her down. Ms A's false teeth were ejected from place and fell into her throat; gagging her. The defendant said he would let Ms A go if she promised to give him sex whenever he asked for it. He threatened her that if he went to prison because of the assault, he would arrange for someone else "to do the job for [him], but it will be worse than this." Ms A was crying and struggling as the defendant raped her. Days later, she reported the assault to police and the defendant was arrested. He denied the allegations to police. He was charged with one count of sexual intercourse without consent and released on bail; a condition of bail being that he was not to approach Ms A. 3. On 12 August 1987, in breach of bail, the defendant returned to Ms A's home in the company of another woman. He entered the house carrying a shotgun and wearing rubber gloves. He disconnected the telephone lines. The accompanying woman stayed for a period of time and then left, taking the shotgun with her. At some point during the evening, the defendant had sexual intercourse with Ms A without her consent (and despite her pleas to stop, tears, and resistance). The defendant also threatened to kill her. Ms A reported this matter to police, and he was charged with a further count of sexual intercourse without consent. The defendant remained on bail. 4. On 3 May 1990, in relation to both of these offences against Ms A, the defendant was sentenced to a 3 year recognizance order with supervision. The Crown appealed on the grounds of manifest adequacy of that sentence and the Court of Criminal Appeal resentenced the defendant to a minimum term of 3 years' imprisonment, with an additional term of 1 year, which commenced on 23 August 1990. 5. On 21 January 1989, a 13 year old girl, Ms B, and a 15 year old girl, Ms C, were on the streets of Grafton after dark. The defendant stopped his vehicle, and purporting to be a police officer, suggested to the girls that he would drive them into town. Instead, he drove to a remote area. Stopping the car, the defendant forced Ms C and Ms B to strip. The defendant put Ms C into the boot of his car and before shutting the boot lid, put his finger into her vagina. The defendant then threatened Ms B with violence and acts of terrorism before raping her in the car, all of which could be heard by CV who remained in the boot, struggling to breathe. After being in the defendant's custody for approximately 2 hours, the defendant "unceremoniously dumped' the victims on the outskirts of Grafton. These were the facts found by the sentencing judge after hearing Ms B and Ms C give evidence. The defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual intercourse without consent (one count committed against each girl); the plea was accepted in full satisfaction of the indictment which contained other allegations of sexual assault and kidnapping. 6. On 14 September 1990, the defendant was sentenced to an overall minimum sentence of 7 years imprisonment with an additional term of 16 months in respect of the offences relating to Ms B and Ms C. He appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeal and argued that he only pleaded guilty because he received a letter that threatened to harm his then-de facto partner. The Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed his application. 7. Also in 1989, the defendant was charged with, but not convicted of, indecent assault type offences involving an 11 year old girl known to him and another female, also known to him. The defendant denied the incident and the Director of Public Prosecutions determined not to proceed further on these charges. 8. In 2011, the defendant lived in the same neighbourhood as an 11 year old girl, Ms D. One Saturday, the defendant went to Ms D's home and asked whether she wanted to go with him to see the horses at his property. Ms D was fond of horses and agreed to go with him. On the way to the property in the defendant's car, he told Ms D that "anything that happens in the car, stays in the car, or I will kill your mother''. On the return journey, the defendant produced a vibrator from a storage compartment in the car and instructed Ms D to "put it against [her] vagina outside [her] pants". Ms D did what he told her to do. After about 5-10 minutes, the defendant said, "You can turn it up if you want to". Ms D remained silent and did not adjust the speed of the vibrator, as she continued to hold it against her vagina. 9. About 5 minutes later, the defendant said, "pull out your pants". Ms D did as she was told, and pulled the front of her underpants forward, away from her vagina. The defendant then looked at Ms D's vagina and said, "You have a nice pussy, put it against your vagina". The defendant asked Ms D, ''Are you wet?", and, confused by the question, Ms D replied, "Yes". The defendant then parked the vehicle on the side of the road. Once they had stopped, the victim changed her answer to 'no'. The defendant restarted the car and drove on towards home. Ms D continued to hold the vibrator until they were close to home because the defendant had not told her she could remove it. Several times after this incident, the defendant asked Ms D to accompany him to various locations or activities (such as quad biking and driving lessons) but Ms D refused to go. The defendant also bought Ms D jewellery. 10. Fearing that the defendant would carry out his threat against her mother, Ms D did not disclose the offence to anyone in authority until 2017, when her school became aware of the incident. 11. On 19 December 2017 at Wagga Wagga Police Station the defendant participated in an interview with police. He denied threatening the victim or directing her to use a vibrator on herself. He confirmed some of the circumstances described by Ms D in her statement, including taking her to his property to pat horses. 12. The defendant was charged with an offence of incite act of indecency in circumstances of aggravation. He pleaded guilty and on 21 September 2018, was sentenced to a 3 year term of imprisonment, with a non-parole period ("NPP") of 18 months. This sentence commenced on 29 July 2021 and expired on 28 June 2024. 13. Around November 2014, the defendant was asked to give some work to 14 year old Ms E. The defendant went in his car to collect Ms E who was, unexpectedly, unaccompanied by the person who had recommended her for work. The defendant drove Ms E to a beach at Tea Gardens, rather than to the workplace. He touched her leg as they sat on the beach. Ms E went into the water to escape the defendant, but he followed. While swimming, the defendant touched Ms E on her vagina and breasts, on the outside of her swimming costume. After they returned to the car, the defendant told Ms E to look for something in the back of the car and, while she was looking as directed, he flipped her and put her hands above her head and held them there. He then removed her swimmers and engaged in penile-vaginal intercourse without consent. 14. In March 2015, Ms F, who was 19 years old at the time, was working at a tobacconist stall, when the defendant came in and asked her if she knew whether any 16 year old girls were looking for work. Ms F said she was interested. The defendant arranged to meet her later. On 15 March 2015, the defendant came to Ms F's home, and they then went for a drive. He directed Ms F to drive to a caravan which was in a remote location. In the caravan, the defendant told Ms she had to model various pieces of lingerie, which Ms F did. The defendant took photographs. The defendant squirted oil on his hands and rubbed Ms F's breasts; he directed her to lie down on her stomach as he straddled her back and squirted oil on it, thereafter forcing four different vibrators into Ms F's vagina without her consent. 15. The defendant was charged with aggravated sexual intercourse without consent and aggravated indecent assault against Ms E and, in relation to Ms F, four counts of sexual intercourse without consent and two counts of indecent assault. The 2014 and 2015 offences were tried together before a jury and the defendant was found guilty by the jury of all offences. On 7 October 2016, the defendant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 9 years with a NPP of 6 years and 9 months. The sentence commenced on 29 July 2015 and expires on 28 July 2024. The offences against Ms E and Ms F are the "serious sex offences" or "index offences" relevant to invoke the Court's jurisdiction with respect to the present application. 16. The defendant also has a history of breaching reporting obligations imposed upon him under the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 (NSW) ("the CPOR Act"). Under the Act the defendant is obliged to report certain information to police, such as the acquisition of new social media accounts, telephone numbers, and car registrations or rentals, within 7 days. He breached these obligations in 2004, 2008, 2011, 2015 and 2023. 17. Having failed to disclose a change to his residence in 2004, the defendant was made subject to a 2 year bond. In 2008 he again failed to advise police of a new residential address, and of the registration of a new car. A further bond was imposed. In 2011 police discovered that the defendant was both operating an undisclosed Facebook account and using an undisclosed mobile telephone service. For the two offences charged against him a further bond was imposed. In 2015, charges relating to the defendant's failures to notify police of three social media or communications accounts he had been using resulted in convictions with no further penalties imposed. In June 2023, at a time when the defendant was subject to parole for the 2011 and 2015 sexual offences, he was charged with a further five counts of failing to comply with reporting obligations. The charges related to the defendant's undisclosed use or possession of a Tik Tok account, a new mobile telephone service, a car newly purchased, a rental car, and two accounts on dating websites. A 10 month intensive corrections order was imposed; it was later revoked, and later again re-instated. The sentence expired on 29 June 2024. 18. The defendant also has convictions for other, non-sexual, offending including for break and enter offences, car theft, and maliciously killing a horse. Troublingly, this latter crime, from 1977, may have been sexually motivated, with evidence revealing that the horse had suffered a substantial vaginal injury, with "a three foot section of intestine" torn from the horse. Other Evidence 1. Of the balance of the evidence tendered in support of the State's application, and bearing in mind the absence of any dispute as to the imposition of an ISO, only the most salient evidence will be referred to. OIMS Notes 1. That evidence includes some selected notes made by staff of NSW Corrective Services via the computerised Offender Integrated Management System ("OIMS"). OIMS notes from 2022 make it clear that the defendant has not acknowledged his offending history and continues to deny the offences of which he has been convicted. On 27 July 2022 he told his parole officer that he "would not waiver in his denial of any sexual offending", offering the same denial to his parole officer in November. The defendant told the officer that, although he would consider participating in a rehabilitative programme, psychologists had nothing to teach him as he was not guilty of all offending. 2. In April 2023 an OIMS note records the recommendation made against the defendant's release to parole, on the basis of his above average risk of sexual re-offending and failure to complete "targeted programmes" in custody. Ultimately, the defendant accepted participation in a particular programme as the only way forward to release to parole. The defendant was subsequently (May 2023) reported to have said that he had enjoyed the EQUIPS Foundation programme, and to be co-operative with matters connected with his release to parole, including electronic monitoring. In June 2023 he was both released to parole (1 June), and breached for failing to comply with reporting obligations. He was returned to custody (on 28 June). An officer noted the defendant's apparent failure to understand the requirements of the CPOR Act. 3. On 21 September 2023 the defendant was again released to parole, remaining at liberty for a little less than three months until charged with the current bestiality offences. Risk Assessment and Management 1. On 25 September 2023, Sarah Wright, Senior Psychologist with the High Risk Offenders Team at the Department of Communities & Justice, completed a risk assessment report in relation to the defendant in anticipation of an application under the Act. 2. Ms Wright interviewed the defendant for 2 hours and 45 minutes via an audio-visual link on the first occasion, and a further 45 minutes via teleconference a few days later. With respect to the defendant's presentation during the interviews, Ms Wright observed him to be unconcerned, noting that he stated multiple times (in relation to a prospective HRO) that "if you want to slap that on me, I don't mind. I'm not a danger to anyone. Why should I mind? If that helps people feel I'm controlled, that's fine. Tell the Commissioner. I've met him four times... I have no qualms". She thought the defendant was evidently engaged in "positive impression management"; he stated repeatedly that he was not a danger to anyone. 3. Ms Wright also had access to extensive documentary material in relation to the defendant and his prior criminal history. 4. Ms Wright noted generally that the defendant's "account of his offending has been inconsistent over time". In discussing the defendant's family, childhood development, trauma history, education, employment and early sexual development, Ms Wright noted inconsistencies between what had been said to her to her and to others. For instance, the defendant reported he left school in the first year of high school due to incarceration in juvenile detention, but he had told a Community Corrections Officer that he had completed Year 10. He reported in interview with Ms Wright that his second marriage lasted 13 years, though another psychologist recorded a period of 17 years, and police facts recorded a marriage of 5 years. 5. He gave a history of a dysfunctional upbringing as one of seven children to his mother, whose father left before his birth. He said his mother was uneducated and his step-father was an abusive and drunken man who was violent towards the defendant and his mother. He reported being a victim of molestation at the hands of a family friend, who visited the family annually. He told his mother about this at age 7, but she did nothing with the information, fearing his step-father's reaction. The defendant said he began getting into trouble after this and ended up in a Boys' Home. At age 16 he said he was incarcerated in an adult gaol, where he said was sexually assaulted by 3 inmates, as he was "too good looking for [his] own good". 6. Despite his childhood criminal activity, the defendant said that he had enjoyed school and gotten along well with teachers, with the school principal expressing a wish to adopt him and take him "away from the shit", a plan supposedly thwarted by his step-father. After school – which he left in the first year of high school on one account, or Year 10 on another – the defendant undertook vocational training in various areas, holding down jobs in building, truck driving, and spray painting, among other industries. One job involved importing "adult sex toys"; recruiting women to run parties to sell the equipment. 7. The defendant's sexual experience began either in his twenties, on one account, or at age 15 on another. He said he was married twice and had five children and 16 grand-children, none of whom maintained contact with him. He said he had never had issues with drugs, alcohol, or gambling, although Ms Wright noted this was inconsistent with other accounts of heavy drinking and using "pills" to stay awake when working as a truck driver. 8. The defendant's health was reported to include a history of heart related conditions, emphysema, and a need for assessments to be conducted to investigate any possible cancerous condition. 9. Ms Wright observed the defendant to bear narcissistic personality traits during the interviews, evident by an inflated sense of importance and sense of entitlement. Past assessments had also noted personality issues including depressive personality features, and obsessive compulsive features. Scoring on psychological assessment tools suggested that the defendant was someone who "is likely to maintain relationships only if they are self-serving", and to meet his own needs at the expense of others. 10. In discussing the sexual offences in his criminal history, the defendant denied liability and suggested sex had occurred consensually, explaining away the facts of the various offences. He denied the horse killing offence altogether, claiming to have been wrongly identified as the perpetrator of the crime. The defendant asserted that he was "still in the horse game" and offered his continuing involvement with horses as proof that he could not have committed the crime. Ms Wright has suggested that the defendant's denials and minimisation of his crimes could elevate the risk he poses because it means that he does not recognise or deal with risk factors, as he might if he accepted responsibility for his crimes. 11. The defendant's conduct in custody has been inconsistent, with some staff reports describing him as respectful, reliable, and positive, whilst others record him as threatening and condescending in his attitude to staff and having difficulty in following instructions. He has completed a number of vocational courses. 12. The defendant claimed to have undertaken a sex offender treatment programme, although Ms Wright could find no official record of it, other than a passing reference in a report from 1999. He has participated in other programmes, such as Conflict Resolution. An offer of specific sex offender treatment (the CUBIT programme) in 2000 was declined by the defendant. In 2016 he was referred to the Sex Offender Programme but was regarded as unmotivated. He was hostile to the suggestion he participate in the High Intensity Sex Offender Program ("HISOP"), stating that if forced to enter the programme, he would "action an audit" as the programme should be "shut down". Although he completed Real Understanding of Self-Help ("RUSH"), he has declined to undertake the EQUIPS Foundation programme. A referral to the Forensic Psychology Service in the community could not be taken up as the defendant was returned to custody so quickly. 13. In suggesting why the defendant came to sexually offend, Ms Wright noted: "Potential motivations for his sexual offending could include sexual gratification and the pursuit of power and control. Sexual entitlement is likely to underly any sexual reoffence." 1. The defendant has been referred to and sometimes participated in a number of sex offender treatment programmes over the years. He has, as noted, refused to accept his eligibility for some programmes, such as the HISOP and the EQUIPS Programme in January 2023, and stated in 2022 that he believes the CUBIT programme, for example, is not scientifically sound. Facilitator notes of the defendant's participation in the RUSH programme from October 2022 noted that the defendant challenged the facilitators around the material being presented. 2. There is some evidence of the defendant wanting to participate in programmes. He self-reported his request to be admitted to the Deniers Programme in 2019, however claims he was turned down at the time. An offer was made for him to complete the programme in May 2023, which he accepted with some frustration: "They had the hide to offer it to me in 2023." 3. Assessment of the risk posed by the defendant using actuarial tools suggest that the defendant continues to present a risk to the community. The "score" returned by the administration of the STATIC-99R tool, being 4, is a score that conveys that the defendant has a "perceptibly higher risk than the typical offender" and a rate of recidivism 1.94 times higher than that of the "typical" sex offender. 4. Administration of the STABLE-2007 tool found that the defendant had a "moderate density of criminogenic needs" relative to other male sexual offenders. The assessment found the most concerning issues for the defendant to be poor problem-solving, negative emotionality, and poor cooperation with supervision. Other risk factors included capacity for relationship stability, hostility towards women, lack of concern for others, and deviant sexual interests. 5. A composite assessment of risks and needs, formed by combining the STATIC-99R and STABLE-2007 tools, places the defendant in the "above average risk level". Further tests, such as the RSVP-V2 tool, show that the defendant falls in the "moderate/elevated" risk category for repeated sexual violence. 6. Ms Wright describes the defendant's sexual offending as "persistent" over an approximately 40-year period. She notes that the accounts he has given of these offences are marked by extreme minimisations and categorical denial. She states that "denial is not considered a reliable predictor of risk of sexual reoffending… however, [it can] create barriers to engaging in treatment or interventions." Ms Wright opines that the defendant demonstrates limited insight into his risk, and concerningly, that the defendant denied having any risk factors. In relation to the defendant's sense of responsibility and accountability, Ms Wright writes: "Mr Morgan evidences a strong sense of victimisation and resentment. This has been evident throughout his sentences, particularly relating to his perception that he is a victim of the criminal justice system and false allegations by the victims. He has a tendency to externalise blame onto others for problems and he ruminates on perceived grievances. Mr Morgan has a demonstrated pattern of responding with hostility and aggression when challenged, and of threatening legal action when he perceives he has been victimised." 1. Ms Wright commented on the defendant's past difficulties with compliance and foreshadowed that there remains a risk that he would not comply with conditions: "Mr Morgan has exhibited some difficulties complying with his supervision requirements, as reflected in his convictions for failing to comply with the CPR on five sentencing occasions, revocation of his parole on two occasions including for being in the company of a child without a responsible adult with him. Mr Morgan verbalises anti-authority attitudes and often verbalises a distrust in the criminal justice system, of which he perceives himself to be a victim. Offenders who place themselves in risky situations, express defiance or anti-authority attitudes, and engage in oppositional behaviour or rule violations are at increased risk to offend." 1. In assessing the defendant's overall risk, Ms Wright opines: "Mr Morgan has denied most of his sexual offending and remains untreated. He has not participated in an intensive treatment program where he would have the opportunity to develop insight into risk issues or to develop a comprehensive self-management plan where he can take responsibility for his future. As such, his appreciation for the need to manage his risk of sexual reoffence (or 'allegations' thereof) is limited; he recognises the need to have a responsible adult with him in the event that he is around children, though perceives this as temporary measure until he can take action to prove his innocence. Without a good understanding of his risk issues, it is questionable how effectively or diligently he would be able to independently manage his own risk. Given these issues, it is possible that any future sexual violence could be "serious" as defined in the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006." 1. On 10 October 2023, Glenn Perry, Community Corrections Officer, prepared a Risk Management Report ("RMR") in relation to the defendant. Like Ms Wright, Mr Perry referred to a historic unwillingness on behalf of the defendant to engage in intervention to address his sexual offending. 2. Mr Perry noted that whilst in custody, the defendant completed a number of TAFE courses, including in equine management, cabinetry, and graphic design, and additionally obtained licenses for heavy equipment, plumbing and landscaping. The defendant does not have employment secured for his release. Mr Perry observed that the defendant had utilised employment as a means of gaining access to victims in the past and advised that it would be prudent for any potential employment to be approved in advance. 3. For the future management of risk, Mr Perry recommended that the defendant be subject to an extensive supervision plan. He proposes that this consist of face-to-face contact with Community Corrections at least once per week, unannounced and announced field visits, and contact with third parties such as health providers, family, and friends. The weekly interviews with Community Corrections would involve the defendant engaging in the Practice Guide for Intervention ("PGI") programme featuring discussions about supervision expectations, offence mapping and building rapport with his supervising officer. Focus would be on implementing behavioural changes, maintaining appropriate interpersonal relationships and developing a prosocial identity. 4. To support this risk management plan, Mr Perry recommends that the defendant submit a weekly schedule of movements to identify and mitigate any potential risks for reoffending and verify his participation in these interventions. For the same reasons, electronic monitoring and travel conditions are recommended, especially in light of the defendant's history of isolating victims in remote locations. Mr Perry proposes that the defendant should be subject to non-association orders which would require him to notify his Departmental Supervising Officer ("DSO") about any person he intends to form a relationship with. Given inconsistencies in the defendant's history of drug and alcohol use, Mr Perry proposes random alcohol and drug testing be conducted. The defendant's history in assuming false identities to gain access to victims also warrants, in Mr Perry's view, the monitoring of his electronic communications and internet access. A condition limiting the defendant's access to pornographic or violent material is also suggested. Concerns about the use of a firearm in prior sexual offending and his documented history of weapons founding during cell searches also, in Mr Perry's view, warrants search and seizure conditions. Usual conditions prohibiting changes to appearance and requiring attendance at programmes (as directed) are also proposed. 5. The risk management plan would be reviewed twice monthly and updated or altered as necessary to reflect any significant changes in the defendant's circumstances. Conclusion as to Orders 1. On the basis of the evidence before the Court, not all of which is summarised here, I am satisfied that the preliminary orders should be made. The question that remains for determination is the extent of the conditions to be imposed upon the defendant. At Issue 1. The defendant disputes 13 of the conditions of the ISO that the State seeks to have imposed. These disputed conditions are set out below, identified by the numbering as it appears in the list of conditions attaching to the application. I note that although one condition has been deleted by agreement (condition 23), the original numbering has been retained to enable any reader to make sense of the discussion of the conditions, and to understand which current condition is referred to. No Condition sought Nature of objection State's Position 6 If directed, you must provide a schedule of movements. Scheduling is not something which addresses, in any material way, the manner of offending in Mr Morgan's criminal history. Nor is it necessary, given Mr Morgan's industrial history, in order for him to achieve a "stable and sustainable lifestyle". Other conditions, such as electronic monitoring and place restrictions are adequate in combination to address any risk. Condition pressed. 7 If you want to change anything in your schedule of movements once it is approved by a DSO, you must seek approval from a DSQ about the change 24 hours in advance, unless a DSO approves a shorter period. As for 6. Condition pressed. 8 You must not deviate from your schedule of movements except in an emergency. As for 6. Condition pressed. Without limiting condition 17 above, you must not go to any of the following places without the prior approval of a DSO: (a) Day-care centres, pre-schools and schools; (b) Amusement parlours, amusement parks and theme parks; (c) Cinemas; 18 (d) Libraries and museums; It is submitted that the condition sought is overbroad. There is no apparent justification for some of the places nominated, that is "cinemas", "libraries and museums", "camping grounds and caravan parks" and "playing fields and sporting activities". Any risk is entirely speculative when formulated at this general level. These items should be deleted. If there were any particular places that would fall within those terms that Mr Morgan's DSP has a justifiable concern about, they could be specified in a direction given under Condition 14. Condition pressed. (e) Camping grounds and caravan parks; Further, the use of the term "parks" is ambiguous as presently worded, and might suggest Mr Morgan is unable to walk through any park. Item (f) should be amended to read, "children's playgrounds and parks or other areas that have play equipment provided for the use of children". (f) Children's playgrounds, parks and areas with play equipment provided for the use of children; (g) Pools, playing fields and sporting facilities; (h) Activities intended for the entertainment of children; (i) Residencies where the defendant knows that persons aged under 18 years ordinarily reside. 23 You must advise the DSO of your possession, purchase, and consumption of alcohol, when reasonably practicable. The evidence suggesting the defendant has a problem with drugs or alcohol is minimal at best. Other than a second report in an old report, there is nothing to suggest the relevant offences were committed under the influence of alcohol. Nor has he ever been assessed as having any substance use disorder. Condition not pressed. In those circumstances, the court could not be satisfied that the restrictions in conditions 23-27 serve any purpose, other than preventing an entirely theoretical escalation of risk. They should be removed. You must not: 24 a) Possess or use prohibited drugs; or As for 23. Condition pressed. b) Abuse prescription drugs which are not prescribed to you. 25 You must submit to drug and alcohol testing. As for 23. Condition pressed. 26 You must not enter any licensed premises (including hotels, bars, racecourses and licenced clubs, but excluding cafes and restaurants) without the prior approval of a DSO. As for 23. Condition pressed. 27 You must attend and participate in programs and courses for drug and alcohol rehabilitation as reasonably directed by a DSO and must not discharge yourself from such programs and courses without prior approval of a DSO. As for 23. Condition pressed. Without limiting or altering condition 34, you must not possess or use any of the following, without a DSO's prior approval: a) a knife, machete, sword or any other device that consists of a single-edged or multi-edged blade or spike that is designed or adapted to inflict violence, whether actual or threatened; 35 b) any other implement made or adapted for use for causing injury to a person; or The current formulation is overly complicated, and whilst the attached note suggests that knives kept for ordinary domestic use are not covered, it would still extend to implements used for legitimate employment purposes, such as a Stanley knife. The definitions in (b) and (c) are very broad and could include a rolled up newspaper. It is submitted that condition 35 ought to be deleted and in lieu condition 34 (c) be included in the following terms: You must not possess or use any offensive, prohibited or dangerous weapon. Condition pressed. c) anything intended, by the person having custody of the thing, to be used to injure or menace a person or damage property. NOTE: Condition 35 does not apply to knives for ordinary domestic use. You must not use any of the following unless approved by a DSO: a) Social networking applications or services (including dating services or applications); 38 b) Encrypted messaging applications or services; The standard-form condition does not address the manner of offending in the defendant's criminal history, and would place the defendant at risk of criminal sanction for uses which would otherwise by lawful. The conditions in 36-43 are already broad enough to cover any situation that may arise from the defendant's use of such devices. For that reason, it is submitted that condition 38 ought to be removed, Condition pressed. c) Online gaming applications or services; d) Instant messaging applications or services. 55 You must agree to your treatment and service providers and healthcare practitioners sharing information, including reports on your progress and attendance, and information you have told them, with each other and with a DSO. The defendant does not oppose the sharing of treatment information where relevant to facilitate the monitoring if his risk. However, the proposed condition has the potential to disrupt the therapeutic relationship between the defendant and his private treatment providers. Condition 57 is also so broadly drafted that it cannot be considered to take into account the defendant's right to confidentiality in any meaningful sense. In order to achieve the appropriate balance, it is proposed that the conditions 55-57 be replaced with the following: Condition pressed, with amended wording suggested: 55. The defendant must agree to any treating psychologists, psychiatrists, counsellors or other mental health specialists and his general practitioner sharing reports on his progress with each other as considered appropriate by his treating medical practitioners, counsellors, or other mental health specialists for the defendant's rehabilitation and/or risk-mitigation in relation to a serious offence. The defendant must agree to any treating psychologists, counsellors or other mental health specialists and his general practitioner sharing reports on his progress with each other and with a DSO as considered appropriate by his treating medical practitioners, counsellors or other mental health specialists for the defendant's rehabilitation, supervision and/or risk mitigation in relation to a serious offence. 56 You must agree to any information obtained under condition 55 being shared between those persons and agencies that are involved in your supervision including, but not limited to, a DSO, NSWPF and CSNSW. As for 55. Condition pressed. A possible qualification to this condition could be that "healthcare information is only to be shared with NSWPF to the extent necessary to prevent offending by the defendant, facilitate the investigation of any breach of the ESO, and as evidence for the prosecution of the defendant for any offence including under s 12 of the Act." 57 You must agree to the disclosure of your criminal history to any healthcare professionals that are treating you. As for 55. Condition pressed. Proposed Conditions 6, 7, 8 1. Proposed conditions 6, 7 and 8 relate to the imposition of a requirement that the defendant submit a schedule of movements to his DSO. The conditions are intended to facilitate oversight and supervision of the defendant and, in combination with electronic monitoring and weekly interviews with his DSO, encourage him to be honest about his whereabouts. 2. The defendant objects to these conditions, submitting that his past offending does not appear to have been based on impulsivity and consequently these conditions are not particularly useful in his case. Further, he argues that electronic monitoring would be sufficient to manage this risk. The State responded that the defendant's offending was opportunistic to the extent that his victims were not pre-selected, and thus there was an element of spontaneity that could be curtailed by imposing scheduling conditions. The State argues that conditions 6 to 8 in their proposed form would operate to reduce the defendant's opportunity to offend, by ensuring he is only in a particular place for as long as he needs to be there, thereby reducing the risk he poses to the community. It was submitted that scheduling works symbiotically with electronic monitoring. 3. The defendant has in the past been able to change his schedules for reasons outside of his control, and they are not applied without flexibility or understanding to a change in circumstance. 4. In the Court's conclusion each of these conditions should be imposed. Condition 6 provides the power for the DSO to direct the defendant to provide schedules of his movements and it is reasonable to infer that the power will only be exercised when schedules are regarded as necessary to mitigate risk. The defendant is clearly a not unintelligent man and requiring him to focus on legitimate activities in circumstances where those activities can be monitored can only promote the defendant's engagement with suitable pastimes, and allow for detection should he fail to do so. Particularly bearing in mind the defendant's long history of serious sexual offending, his untreated condition, and his many failures in the past to submit to legitimate scrutiny of his activities, it is preferable that those who are to supervise the defendant in the community have all necessary tools to do so. The efficacy of electronic monitoring is reduced in the absence of a schedule of movements, and it is not desirable at this early stage to allow that to occur. Proposed Condition 18 1. The contested subsections of proposed condition 18 are subsection (c), (d), (f) and (g), which prohibit the defendant from entering cinemas, libraries and museums, parks, pools, playing fields, and sporting facilities. The State submits that condition is required as proposed to ensure the defendant does not loiter in places where children and adolescents typically congregate. It also refers to the defendant's history of taking his victims to parks and remote locations. 2. The defendant argues that there are legitimate purposes for him to want to go to a park or museum or other nominated place, and the condition represents an oppressive, overly broad imposition on his liberty. 3. Whilst it may be accepted that a visit to a park is not of itself a risky activity, it is easy to foresee the potential risk in the defendant's attendance at such a place. Although cinemas, libraries, museums, and sporting facilities are not necessarily designed for the primary use of children in the way that a day-care centre, for example, is, these are facilities that are routinely used by children. The condition suggested by the State does not prevent the defendant from having access to such facilities – it requires him to exercise some forethought so that he can secure permission for attendance in advance. He can attend an exhibition at a museum, see a movie, visit a library to borrow books, or go for a walk in a park, if he secures approval prior to doing so. Although the requirement is no doubt inconvenient, and makes spontaneity impossible, it is not a blanket ban on the defendant having access to the benefits of these facilities. The scheduling condition, in any event, requires the defendant to plan his movements ahead of time and, bearing the operation of that condition in mind, it should not pose any great hardship to seek approval ahead of time for activities of this nature. It will enhance community safety if the defendant is required to do so. 4. As to the contention that the defendant is prevented from walking through a park, such as Hyde Park in Sydney, or hiking in a National Park, I accept that the unqualified use of the word "park" has a very broad effect, and could include municipal parks and areas designated as a National Park – but only where the particular park has children's play equipment. Again, the defendant can readily seek permission to attend a park or National Park via the submission of schedules and discussion with a DSO. 5. I do not propose to amend this condition. Proposed Condition 25 1. Proposed condition 25 requires the defendant to submit to alcohol and drug testing. He argues that whilst drug testing could be relevant, alcohol testing is less so. The State submits that it is not just necessarily the consumption of alcohol, but the degree to which someone is consuming alcohol which may be an indicator of stress levels and/or an inability to cope. The State points to the defendant's psychometric testing which conveyed positive impression management and suggested that in circumstances where the defendant is not being candid with his departmental supervising officer, alcohol testing may more accurately provide insight into the defendant's coping ability at that time and therefore indicate his level of risk. The defendant argues that if high degrees of intoxication is the concern, then this is something that would be apparent through direct observation and would not require testing. 2. The Court is mindful of Ms Wright's observations concerning the information in the documentary record as to the defendant's use of excessive quantities of alcohol contemporaneous to the commission of some of his offences, as well as his use of "pills". Whilst the defendant has sometimes acknowledged some degree of substance abuse and sometimes not, there is reason to conclude that alcohol and drug use could have an historical link to the defendant, and could pose a risk in the future. Disinhibition as a consequence of substance abuse is something to be avoided, and the condition will be imposed. If the defendant demonstrates his ability to comply with the condition, it may be that it will not be needed as he progresses in the community. Proposed Conditions 26 and 27 1. Proposed condition 26 seeks to prohibit the defendant from entering licenced premises without prior approval of a DSO. The State expresses concerns that venues for selling alcohol, such as hotels, bars and licenced clubs, may host women who may be intoxicated and have impaired judgment. The plaintiff further submitted that licenced bars and RSLs increasingly have separate play areas for children. The defendant disputes that, suggesting that given the nature of licenced premises they would be primarily occupied by adults. The defendant has also indicated his interest in pursuing work in a bar. 2. For the same reasons as the Court has concluded that condition 25 should be imposed, this condition too should be imposed. If the defendant is to avoid alcohol and drug use, there is little point in him entering licensed premises without his DSO approving of such an activity. At least until the defendant has shown some progress in the community, his employment in a bar is undesirable, as there is force in the State's contention that there is a risk that the defendant would sexually exploit any intoxicated woman he encountered in licensed premises. 3. Proposed condition 27 requires the defendant to participate in any drug and alcohol rehabilitation courses as reasonably directed by his DSO. He disputes this condition on the basis he is not diagnosed with alcohol or drug use disorders. 4. I have referred already to the defendant's inconsistent accounts of his drug and alcohol use over time, and to the evidence that suggests both have had or may have had some role to play in his offending past. The disputed condition simply gives the DSO the capacity to direct the defendant to undertake appropriate rehabilitation; it is reasonable to infer that, as with all powers provided to a DSO administering an ISO or ESO, the power will only be utilised as required to mitigate risk and promote rehabilitation. Proposed Condition 35 1. Proposed condition 35 would prohibit the defendant's possession of offensive weapons. The defendant argues that the wording of the condition is too vague and that the definitions in subsections (b) and (c) could be interpreted to apply to almost anything, including a rolled up newspaper, and therefore impose an unfair burden on him. 2. This condition, in my opinion, does little more than require the defendant to comply with the law. The possession and carrying of knives (or swords or machetes) in public is illegal for any person in the community without a lawful excuse, and that law applies to the defendant. It is difficult to foresee any situation in which he would need to possess or carry a bladed weapon, or any object designed for use as a weapon, other than domestic knives for use in the kitchen or home – these implements being excluded from the operation of condition 35. 3. I can see no hardship to the defendant in prohibiting him from possessing or using knives, machetes, objects intended for use as a weapon, etc, other than domestic blades in a domestic setting. Given that the use of a weapon has a connection with his offending past, there is a clear basis for the prohibition. To address the defendant's concern about the potentially broad operation of the condition, the words "without lawful excuse" will be added to the condition, after the words "you must not possess or use any of the following", and before the words "without a DSO's prior approval". I can see no reasonable possibility that any DSO would take action against the defendant for carrying a newspaper rolled. Some level of common sense can be anticipated in the implementation of orders such as these; the defendant's concerns to the contrary are misplaced. Proposed Condition 38 1. This condition would place stringent restrictions on the defendant's ability to access the internet, social media, and messaging platforms, although it allows for access to be granted with DSO approval. The State submits this condition is necessary because it provides an oversight in relation to the opportunities he may have to communicate with young people and adult women. The State relies on the defendant's previous downloading of TikTok and the recent bestiality charges, which relate to material downloaded from the internet. The defendant accepts the restrictions in relation to pornographic and violent material, but submits that some of the sub conditions are overly broad and could extend to restricting him from engaging in text messaging and the like. 2. This condition is, in the Court's conclusion, essential to the protection of the community. There is evidence contained within OIMS notes to the effect that the defendant is desirous of using dating applications, and it is not difficult to foresee how the internet could be used by an untreated individual with the defendant's proclivities and long offending history to engage with a potential victim. In imposing the condition some credit must be given to those supervising the defendant – it must be at least highly unlikely that a supervisor would cause a charge to be brought against the defendant for the socially acceptable and positive use of text messages, for example. The object of the condition is to mitigate risk, not to prohibit positive social engagement. It is reasonable to proceed on the basis that DSOs are aware of that, and utilise their authority to facilitate the former, rather than to prevent the latter. Again, common sense by all concerned in proceedings such as this is necessary. Proposed Conditions 56 and 57 1. The parties agreed to amended wording for proposed condition 55 (outlined above) but remain in dispute in relation to conditions 56 and 57. These conditions relate to the sharing of information and disclosure to agencies involved in the defendant's supervision (condition 56) and healthcare professionals (condition 57). The State submits that sharing information, particularly the defendant's criminal history, would allow for risk developments to be identified and addressed. The defendant contends it impermissibly impedes his right to confidentiality. 2. The Court will adopt the agreed amended wording as to condition 55, and the qualification suggested by the State with respect to condition 56. Condition 57 will be imposed as sought. 3. For any health or therapeutic professional to properly and effectively treat the defendant there must be awareness of his past and current information. Only if clinicians are fully informed can the defendant be properly treated, an outcome in both the community's and the defendant's interests. The conditions do not permit the defendant's criminal history and other relevant information to be broadcast to anyone and everyone, but to practitioners who need to have the information to facilitate thorough and effective treatment, and to those monitoring and addressing the risk he poses to the community. The qualification to condition 56 limits the release of information to police appropriately. A Further Restriction? 1. Given the present prosecution of the defendant for possessing bestiality material, and his past conviction for maliciously killing a horse, with the disturbing facts of the conviction, the Court is concerned to ensure that the defendant does not have access to animals, as he suggested to Ms Wright he could. There is a clear flavour of sexual deviancy about the conviction concerning the horse, and the defendant's continuing perverted interest in animals is at least suggested by the bestiality charges. 2. However, the matter was not raised by the State, and nor did the Court raise the potential danger presented by the defendant having access to animals to permit him to make any submission concerning a possible restriction in this regard. 3. Accordingly, although the Court will not at this stage impose an additional condition prohibiting the defendant from having possession or control of any animal unless specifically authorised by his DSO, those experts who are engaged to assess the defendant and report to the Court should give some consideration to the need for a condition of this nature. It may be something that should be addressed at the final hearing of this application. In the interim, any DSO should be astute to consider the risk of the defendant engaging in cruel and illicit sexual practices with animals – which would presumably elevate his risk of crimes against people – and issue such directions as may be necessary in that regard. Orders Preliminary hearing order: expert reports 1. An order pursuant to s 7(4) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 ("the Act"): 1. Appointing two qualified psychiatrists or psychologists (or any combination of 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 a date to be fixed by the Court; and 2. Direct the defendant to attend those examinations. Interim relief 1. An order: 1. Pursuant to s 10A of the Act, that the defendant be subject to an interim supervision order from 28 July 2024 ("the interim supervision order"); 2. Pursuant to s 10C(1) of the Act, that the interim supervision order be for a period of 28 days; and 3. 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 these orders. 1. The matter is listed before the High Risk Offenders List judge at 10am on 1 August 2024 for directions and timetabling orders. ********** Schedule of conditions of supervision daryl morgan In these conditions: "Associate" includes, but is not limited to, being in company with, or communicating with by any means (including by post, facsimile, telephone, email or any other form of electronic communication). "CSNSW" means Corrective Services NSW. "Commissioner" means Commissioner for Corrective Services. "Defendant" means Darryl Peter Morgan, also known as Darryl Peter Ross, the defendant in these proceedings and the subject of the order. "DSO" means Departmental Supervising Officer, that is, any Corrective Services Officer supervising the defendant under the order. "Electronic Identity" means each of the following: 1. an email address, 2. a user name or other identity allowing access to an instant messaging service, 3. a user name or other identity allowing access to a chat room or social media on the internet, 4. any other user name or other identity allowing access to the internet or an electronic communication service. "Material" includes: 1. any written or printed material; 2. any picture, painting or drawing; 3. any carving, sculpture, statue or figure; 4. any photograph, film, video recording or other object or thing from which an image may be reproduced; 5. any computer data or the computer record or system containing the data; and 6. any other material or object on which an image or representation is recorded or from which an image or representation may be reproduced. "NSWPF" means NSW Police Force. "Search" includes: 1. A garment search, being a search of any article of clothing worn by the defendant or in the defendant's possession, where the article of clothing is touched or removed from the person's body; and 2. A pat-down search, meaning a search of the defendant where the defendant's clothed body is touched. "Schedule of movements" refers to a weekly plan (referred to in Conditions 6-8), to be submitted to a DSO each Wednesday and which commences on the following Saturday if approved by a DSO. Part A: Reporting and Monitoring Obligations Monitoring and Reporting 1. You must accept the supervision and guidance of a DSO and obey all reasonable directions of a DSO. 2. Where a direction maybe given in writing (or is required to be given in writing) it may be given electronically including by SMS or other messaging service. 3. You must truthfully answer questions from a DSO, or any other person supervising you, about: 1. where you are or have been; 2. where you are going; 3. who you are with or have been with; 4. what you are doing or have been doing; and 5. the nature of your associations. 1. You must agree to any information relating to your risk, supervision or rehabilitation being shared between those persons and agencies that are involved in your supervision including, but not limited to, a DSO, NSWPF and CSNSW. Electronic Monitoring 1. You must wear electronic monitoring equipment as directed by a DSO and must not tamper with or remove the equipment. Schedule of Movements 1. If directed, you must provide a schedule of movements. 2. If you want to change anything in your schedule of movements once it is approved by a DSO, you must seek approval from a DSO about the change 24 hours in advance, unless a DSO approves a shorter period. 3. You must not deviate from your schedule of movements except in an emergency. Part B: Accommodation​​​​​​​ 1. You must live at an address approved by a DSO and notify a DSO of any intention to change your approved address or living arrangements. 2. You must be at your approved address between 9pm and 6am unless other arrangements are approved by a DSO. 3. You must allow a DSO to visit you at your approved address at any time and to enter the premises at that address. 4. You must not spend the night anywhere other than your approved address or any alternative approved addresses without the approval of a DSO. 5. You must promptly notify a DSO of any visitor entering and remaining at your approved address. 6. You must not permit any person to stay overnight at your approved address (other than persons who ordinarily reside there) without the prior approval of a DSO. Nb. When/where your "approved address" is shared accommodation, for purpose of condition 15, "approved address" specifically means your allocated bedroom in the shared accommodation. Part C: Place and travel restrictions 1. You must surrender any passports held by you to the Commissioner, must not be in possession of any passports, and must not attempt to apply for any passports. 2. You must not leave New South Wales without the approval of the Commissioner. 3. You must not go to any place specified by a DSO. 4. Without limiting condition 17 above, you must not go to any of the following places without the prior approval of a DSO: 1. Day-care centres, pre-schools and schools; 2. Amusement parlours, amusement parks and theme parks; 3. Cinemas; 4. Libraries and museums; 5. Camping grounds and caravan parks; 6. Children's playgrounds, parks, and areas with play equipment provided for the use of children; 7. Pools, playing fields and sporting facilities; 8. Activities intended for the entertainment of children; 9. Residences where you know that persons aged under 18 years ordinarily reside; and 1. You must seek and receive approval from a DSO before attending any place used solely or mainly for the sale or display of sexually explicit material, or for providing sexual services or sexually explicit entertainment. Part D: Employment, finance and education 1. You must take all reasonable steps to participate in programs as recommended by a DSO, including the development of a case management plan which may include employment, education, training or participation in personal development activities. 2. You must not start on your own initiative any job, volunteer work or educational course without the approval of a DSO, and you must advise the DSO within 24 hours of commencing any job, volunteer work, or educational course, or of any change to the same. 3. You must provide any information relating to your financial affairs, including income and expenditure, if directed by a DSO. Part E: Drugs and alcohol 1. You must advise the DSO of your possession, purchase, and consumption of alcohol, when reasonably practicable. Deleted by agreement. 2. You must not: 1. Possess or use prohibited drugs; or 2. Abuse prescription drugs which are not prescribed to you. 1. You must submit to drug and alcohol testing. 2. You must not enter any licensed premises (including hotels, bars, racecourses and licenced clubs, but excluding cafes and restaurants) without the prior approval of a DSO. 3. You must attend and participate in programs and courses for drug and alcohol rehabilitation as reasonably directed by a DSO and must not discharge yourself from such programs and courses without prior approval of a DSO. Part F: Non-association Association with Children 1. You must not associate with anyone who he knows or reasonably should know is under 18, other than: 1. incidental contact in a public place in the course of the duties of the minor; or 2. with the written permission of a DSO and in accordance with any requirements reasonably determined by a DSO. Associations with Others (not children) 1. You must not associate with any person specified by a DSO. 2. Without limiting condition 29, you must not associate with any person: 1. who you know is consuming or under the influence of alcohol without the prior approval of a DSO, or to seek approval from a DSO as soon as this circumstance becomes known; 2. who you know is consuming or under the influence of illegal drugs; or 3. held in custody without prior approval of a DSO. 1. You must seek and receive approval from a DSO before engaging the services of sex workers. 2. You must agree to a DSO disclosing your criminal history to another person. Before any disclosure is made, you will first be given the opportunity to make the disclosure yourself within a timeframe as identified by a DSO. 3. You must obtain approval from a DSO prior to joining or affiliating with any club or organisation. Part G: Weapons​​​​​​​ 1. You must not possess or use any of the following: 1. a firearm, firearm part or ammunition within the meaning of the Firearms Act 1996; or 2. a prohibited weapon within the meaning of the Weapons Prohibition Act 1998. 1. Without limiting or altering condition 34, you must not possess or use any of the following without lawful excuse, without a DSO's prior approval: 1. a knife, machete, sword or any other device that consists of a single-edged or multi-edged blade or spike that is designed or adapted to inflict violence, whether actual or threatened; 2. any other implement made or adapted for use for causing injury to a person; or 3. anything intended, by the person having custody of the thing, to be used to injure or menace a person or damage property. NOTE: Condition 35 does not apply to knives for ordinary domestic use. Part H: Access to the internet and other electronic communication​​​​​​​ 1. You must obey any reasonable direction by a DSO about the use of electronic devices and access to the internet. 2. You must disclose the following information to a DSO if directed: 1. Aliases, electronic identities and log-in names; 2. Email addresses; 3. Telephone numbers; 4. SIM cards; 5. Applications used (including any social networking service); 6. Online gaming services; 7. Instant messaging services; 8. Service provider account numbers; and 9. All passwords and log-in details. 1. You must not use any of the following unless approved by a DSO: 1. Social networking applications or services (including dating services or applications); 2. Encrypted messaging applications or services; 3. Online gaming applications or services; 4. Instant messaging applications or services. 1. You must give a DSO a list of the electronic devices you use to communicate with or access the internet. This includes computers, phones, tablet devices, data storage devices and gaming devices. You must advise a DSO of any change to the list immediately. 2. You must only use an electronic device to access the internet after the device has been disclosed to a DSO and the device has been seen and approved for use by a DSO. 3. You must provide consent for a DSO (or any other person requested by a DSO) to remotely inspect any internet account used by you, including any internet service provider account, email accounts and social media accounts, in monitoring compliance with this Order. 4. You must not delete or alter any of the following from your electronic devices without prior approval of a DSO: 1. Applications; 2. Emails; 3. Text messages; 4. Electronic messages; 5. Call history; 6. Files or documents; 7. Photographs, images and videos; or 8. Internet or application usage and search history. 1. You must provide consent for your telephone provider and internet service provider to share information about your accounts with a DSO. Part I: Search and seizure 1. If the DSO forms a reasonable suspicion that a search is required, either to monitor your compliance with this Order, or for the safety and welfare of any other person, or because the DSO suspects you of having engaged in behaviour or conduct associated with an increased risk of committing a serious offence, you must submit to the search by your DSO (or any other person as directed by the DSO) of person or residence, or any vehicle in which you are travelling or which is under your effective control, or any computer, electronic or communication device, storage facility, garage, locker or commercial facility in your possession or under your control and to the seizure of any object located during the search. 2. You must submit to the search by your DSO (or any other person as directed by the DSO) of any computer, electronic or communication device in your possession or under your control and to the seizure of such devices. 3. You must not attempt to destroy or interfere with any object that is the subject of a search or seizure, carried out pursuant to this Order. Part J: Access to pornographic, violent and classified material 1. You must seek and receive approval from your DSO to purchase, possess, access, obtain, view, participate in or listen to material classified as Refused Classification, X18+ Restricted, Category 1 Restricted and Category 2 Restricted as defined under the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 (Cth), or any other material as directed by a DSO with respect to concerns related to risk of committing a serious offence. Part K: Personal details and appearance​​​​​​​ 1. You must not change your name from "Darryl Peter Morgan" or "Darryl Peter Ross" or use any other name without notifying a DSO. 2. You must not significantly change your appearance without the approval of a DSO. 3. You must let a DSO photograph you, dressed, within one week of the commencement of these conditions and following any significant change to your appearance. 4. If you change the details of any current form of identification or obtain further forms of identification, you must provide a DSO with such details. Part L: Medical intervention and treatment​​​​​​​ 1. You must undergo ongoing psychological or psychiatric assessment or counselling (or any combination of these) as directed by a DSO, including any therapy sessions, support and treatment programs the subject of the direction. 2. You must take medications that are prescribed to you by your healthcare practitioners and only in the manner prescribed. 3. You must notify a DSO immediately if you cease to take or decline to commence taking any medication as referred to in the above condition. 4. You must agree to any treating psychologists, psychiatrists, counsellors or other mental health specialists and your general practitioner sharing reports on your progress with each other and with the DSO as considered appropriate by your treating medical practitioners, counsellors or other mental health specialists for your rehabilitation, supervision, and / or risk mitigation in relation to a serious offence. 5. You must agree to any information obtained under condition 55 being shared between those persons and agencies that are involved in your supervision including, but not limited to, a DSO, NSWPF and CSNSW. Healthcare information is only to be shared with NSWPF to the extent necessary to prevent offending by you, facilitate the investigation of any breach or suspected breach of the ESO, and as evidence for the prosecution of you for any offence including under s 12 of the Act. 6. You must agree to the disclosure of your criminal history to any healthcare professionals that are treating you. DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 26 July 2024