NSW Caselaw
Supreme Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: State of New South Wales v Ryan (Preliminary) [2024] NSWSC 1300 Hearing dates: 10 October 2024 Date of orders: 10 October 2024 Decision date: 16 October 2024 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: McNaughton J Decision: (1) Pursuant to ss 10A and 10C(1) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), that the defendant be subject to an Interim Supervision Order commencing on 21 November 2024 for a period of 28 days, known as the "Interim Supervision Order". (2) Pursuant to s 11 of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) the defendant is, for the period of the Interim Supervision Order, to comply with the conditions set out in the Schedule of Conditions of Supervision. (3) Pursuant to s 7(4) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW): (a) Appoint two qualified psychiatrists, two registered psychologists, or any combination of two such persons, to conduct separate psychiatric and/or psychological examinations of the defendant and to furnish reports to the Supreme Court of New South Wales on the results of those examinations by a date to be fixed by the Court; and (b) That the defendant attend those examinations. Catchwords: HIGH RISK OFFENDER – extended supervision order – preliminary hearing – application for interim supervision order and mandatory psychiatric and/or psychological examinations – interim supervision order and mandatory psychiatric and/or psychological examinations not opposed by defendant – dispute limited to conditions – serious sex offender – where numerous prior convictions for sexual offending – where history of breaching parole and reporting obligations – interim supervision order imposed Legislation Cited: Child Protection (Offenders Prohibition Orders) Act 2004 (NSW) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 61M, 66A Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), ss 4, 5, 5B, 7, 10A, 10C, 11 Cases Cited: State of New South Wales v Nixon (Preliminary) [2022] NSWSC 1561 Category: Principal judgment Parties: State of New South Wales (Plaintiff) Craig Anthony Ryan (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: K Curry (Plaintiff) S Goodwin (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