Attorney General for the State of New South Wales v Hadson [2008] NSWSC 140

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Attorney General for the State of New South Wales v Hadson [2008] NSWSC 140

HEARING DATE(S) : 14 February 2008

JUDGMENT DATE : 26 February 2008

JUDGMENT OF : Fullerton J

DECISION : Order made pursuant to s 9(1)(a) of the Crimes (Serious Sex Offenders) Act 2006 that the defendant be subject to an extended supervision order for a period of five years.

CATCHWORDS : Serious sex offender - Application for extended supervision order

LEGISLATION CITED : Crimes (Serious Sex Offenders) Act 2006

Attorney General for the State of New South Wales v Gallagher [2006] NSWSC 340 CASES CITED : Cornwall v Attorney General for New South Wales [2007] NSWCA 374 Tillman v Attorney General for New South Wales [2007] NSWCA 327

PARTIES : Attorney General for the State of New South Wales (Plaintiff) Neville Francis Hadson (Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 2007/15473

COUNSEL : P Menzies QC/S Callan (Plaintiff) D Dalton SC (Defendant)

SOLICITORS : Crown Solicitor of New South Wales (Plaintiff) Ross Hill & Associates (Defendant)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION CIVIL LIST

FULLERTON J

26 FEBRUARY 2008

2007/15473 ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR NEW SOUTH WALES v NEVILLE FRANCIS HADSON

JUDGMENT

HER HONOUR : 1 By amended summons filed on 14 November 2007, the Attorney General for the State of New South Wales seeks final relief in the form of an order that the defendant be subject to extended supervision pursuant to s 9(1)(a) of the Crimes (Serious Sex Offenders) Act 2006 (the "Act") for a period of five years and by ordering his compliance with a number of conditions for that same period. 2 In support of the orders sought, the plaintiff relies on the following affidavit evidence: (a) the affidavit of Jillian Mears affirmed on 10 October 2007 and Exhibit JM1; and (b) the affidavit of Bradley Dean affirmed on 29 October 2007 and Exhibit BD1. I note that Exhibit BD1 contains documents obtained from various government departments and agencies, primarily the Department of Corrective Services, pursuant to s 25(1) of the Act. This section provides that the Attorney General may, by order in writing served on any person, require that person to provide any document, report or other information in that person's possession, or under that person's control, that relates to the behaviour, or physical or mental condition, of any sex offender. Subsection (3) provides that any document or report of a kind referred to in subsection (1) is admissible in proceedings under the Act. 3 In circumstances where the defendant does not resist the order for his extended supervision, and has ultimately sought only to persuade me that the term of the order should be shortened from five years to three years, it is not necessary that I refer to the evidence upon which the plaintiff relies in any detail. I will however refer to some of the most recent reports concerning the defendant in order to make patent the reasons for the orders that I have resolved ought be made. 4 At the defendant's request, Drs O'Dea and Wilcox, both of whom examined the defendant for the purposes of these proceedings, and Ms Sutton and Ms Dumasia, both of whom are psychologists employed by the Department of Corrective Services, were made available for cross-examination. By agreement they gave their evidence concurrently. I will refer to their evidence later in the course of this judgment.