NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Supreme Court
CITATION : Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales v Tillman [2007] NSWSC 356
HEARING DATE(S) : 16/04/2007
JUDGMENT DATE : 17 April 2007
JUDGMENT OF : Hoeben J at 1
DECISION : Defendant subjected to interim extended supervision for a period of 28 days subject to conditions.
CATCHWORDS : Application - interim continuous detention order - interim extended supervision order - sex offender - legislative purpose - protection and rehabilitation - standard of proof - whether defendant requires supervision - procedural fairness - psychologist's evidence - actuarial risk assessment - sexual recidivism risk - participation in treatment programs.
Child Protection (Offenders Prohibition Orders) Act 2004 LEGISLATION CITED : Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 Crimes (Serious Sex Offenders) Act 2006
CASES CITED : Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales v Gallagher [2006] NSWSC 340 Boughy v The Queen (1986) 161 CLR at 10
PARTIES : Attorney-General for New South Wales - Plaintiff Kenneth Davidson Tillman -Defendant
FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 11830/2007
COUNSEL : Mr L Babb/Ms A Mitchelmore - Plaintiff Mr A Haesler SC - Defendant
SOLICITORS : IV Knight, Crown Solicitor - Plaintiff SE O'Connor, Solicitor for Legal Aid Commission of NSW - Defendant
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION
HOEBEN J
Tuesday 17 April 2007
11830/2007 – ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES v Kenneth Davidson TILLMAN
JUDGMENT 1 HIS HONOUR: Nature of proceedings On 11 April 2007 the Attorney General for New South Wales (the plaintiff) brought an application under the Crimes (Serious Sex Offenders) Act 2006 ("the Act") by summons seeking a "continuing detention order" or alternatively a "extended supervision order" with respect to the defendant. 2 The defendant is presently imprisoned at the Long Bay Correctional Centre. His sentence expires on Wednesday 18 April 2007 and he is due to be released from custody on that day. 3 The final relief sought by the plaintiff is that the defendant be subject to a continuing detention order for a period of 5 years pursuant to s17 of the Act. In the alternative, the plaintiff seeks an extended supervision order in respect of the defendant for the same length of time pursuant to s9. Because of the imminent release date of the defendant, the plaintiff seeks an interim detention order for a period of 28 days pursuant to s16 of the Act or alternatively an interim supervision order for the same period pursuant to s8. 4 The plaintiff filed a Notice of Motion seeking expedition of the hearing in relation to the relief sought in the summons and in particular that the application for interim relief be heard on an urgent basis. On 11 April 2007 Hislop J ordered that the plaintiff's Notice of Motion be listed for hearing on Monday 16 April 2007. That is how the matter comes before the court. 5 In support of the application for the interim and other orders, the plaintiff relies on the following evidence:
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