NSW v Quinn [2008] NSWSC 1080

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : NSW v Quinn [2008] NSWSC 1080

HEARING DATE(S) : 28/07/08; 03/09/08; 12/09/08; 26/09/08; 2/10/08

JUDGMENT DATE : 2 October 2008

JURISDICTION : Common Law Division

JUDGMENT OF : Hidden J at 1

DECISION : Continuing detention order for 3 years from 03/10/08, subject to conditions

CATCHWORDS : CRIMES (SERIOUS SEX OFFENDERS) ACT: - application for continuing detention order - only issues length of order, terms of conditions

LEGISLATION CITED : Crimes (Serious Sex Offenders) Act 2006 (ss9,13)

CASES CITED : Attorney General v Quinn [2007] NSWSC 873

PARTIES : The State of New South Wales (plaintiff) Peter Andrew Quinn (defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 013412 of 2008

COUNSEL : L Babb SC and D Kell (plaintiff) M Johnston (defendant)

SOLICITORS : Crown Solicitor (plaintiff) Catherine Hunter (defendant)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

HIDDEN J

Thursday 2 October 2008

013412/2008 The State of New South Wales v Peter Andrew Quinn

JUDGMENT – ex tempore 1 HIS HONOUR: The Attorney General seeks an extended supervision order against the defendant under s9 of the Crimes (Serious Sex Offenders) Act 2006. 2 On 10 August 2007, Hall J made a continuing detention order against the defendant for 12 months. The background to the present application is to be found in his Honour's judgment: see Attorney General v Quinn [2007] NSWSC 873 at [69] ff. There is no need to recite that background because the present application is the subject of a large measure of agreement between the parties. 3 Since his release after the continuing detention order, the defendant has been subject to interim supervision orders made by me. Before I could make the order now sought, I would need to be satisfied to a high degree of probability that the defendant is likely to commit a serious sex offence if he is not kept under supervision. Those are the terms of s9(2) of the Act. 4 I am so satisfied. The defendant has a significant history of sexual offending of escalating gravity, culminating in the aggravated sexual assault of a fifteen-year-old girl. It was at the end of his sentence in respect of that offence that Hall J made the continuing detention order to which I have referred. There is ample support for that conclusion in a body of expert opinion, psychiatric and psychological. Indeed, the defendant accepts as much and the extended supervision order is not opposed. 5 It is proposed that the order be accompanied by conditions set out in a Risk Management Plan which has been supplied to me. Those conditions are onerous in their totality but, in large part, they are appropriate. Again, the defendant accepts as much and there is relatively little dispute as to what they should be. The only issues I have to decide are, firstly, the length of the order and, secondly, the terms of a few of the conditions about which there has been argument. 6 Let me turn, first, to the duration of the extended supervision order. An important factor in that decision is the defendant's significant history of substance abuse, particularly of alcohol, which clearly has been associated with his offending. There is no argument about that and again it is not necessary to recite the abundant expert evidence on that topic. The maximum period for which an extended supervision order can be made is five years. 7 Dr O'Dea, in a report of September this year, expressed this opinion: Any community management plan should be long term and therefore at least five years in duration as Mr Quinn's risk of relapse of his alcohol abuse and his risk of engaging in further sex offending behaviour are long term issues.