State of New South Wales v Morgan (Final) [2024] NSWSC 1252

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: State of New South Wales v Morgan (Final) [2024] NSWSC 1252 Hearing dates: 9 October 2024 Date of orders: 14 October 2024 Decision date: 14 October 2024 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: R A Hulme AJ Decision: Extended supervision order made for period of five years with conditions Catchwords: HIGH RISK OFFENDERS – final hearing – extended supervision order – dispute confined to conditions –statement by victim supporting order and conditions – no question of principle Legislation Cited: Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 (NSW) Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) Cases Cited: State of New South Wales v Morgan (Preliminary) [2024] NSWSC 892 State of New South Wales v O'Hara (Final) [2024] NSWSC 225 State of New South Wales v Wilkinson (Preliminary) [2020] NSWSC 1813 Category: Principal judgment Parties: State of New South Wales (Plaintiff) Darryl Peter Morgan, also known as Darryl Peter Ross (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

JUDGMENT 1. The State of New South Wales has applied for a 5-year extended supervision order under the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) in relation to Mr Darryl Peter Morgan, sometimes known as Darryl Peter Ross. [1] 2. On 26 July 2024, Wilson J ordered the appointment of two experts to assess Mr Morgan's risk of serious sex offending and made an interim supervision order: State of New South Wales v Morgan (Preliminary) [2024] NSWSC 892. Mr Morgan was then in custody serving the balance of parole of a sentence for sex offences and on remand for charges of possessing bestiality material. The interim order did not commence until he was released on bail on 23 August 2024 after the balance of parole had expired on 28 July 2024. 3. There is no dispute that Mr Morgan qualifies as a person in respect of whom an extended supervision order may be made. All the statutory pre-trial procedures have been complied with and the preconditions for the making of an extended supervision order are met. 4. The critical issue is whether there is "a high degree of probability that [Mr Morgan] poses an unacceptable risk of committing another serious [sex] offence if not kept under supervision": s 5B(d) of the Act. Mr Morgan concedes that in light of his history and the reports of the two court-appointed experts it is "almost inevitable" that an order will be made and he "does not wish to be heard" in that respect. He does, however, take issue with some of the conditions proposed by the State. 5. Having regard to the limited controversy raised by Mr Morgan there is no useful purpose served by setting out references to the legislation and the principles that have developed concerning its application. Such matters are readily found in numerous judgments of the Court, a helpful recent example being that of Chen J in State of New South Wales v O'Hara (Final) [2024] NSWSC 225 at [8]-[34] and [120].