State of New South Wales v Harrison [2009] NSWSC 198

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : State of New South Wales v Harrison [2009] NSWSC 198

HEARING DATE(S) : 16 February 2009

JUDGMENT DATE : 24 February 2009

JUDGMENT OF : Fullerton J

DECISION : I order that the extended supervision order made by me on 26 November 2008 pursuant to s 17(a)(i) of the Crimes (Serious Sex Offenders) Act be extended for a period of 4 years and 9 months from 24 February 2009.

CATCHWORDS : SERIOUS SEX OFFENDER - extended supervision order

LEGISLATION CITED : Crimes (Serious Sex Offenders) Act 2006

CASES CITED : State of New South Wales v Harrison [2008] NSWSC 1306 State of New South Wales v Tillman, 11241/08, Hoeben J, 11 April 2008

PARTIES : State of New South Wales (Plaintiff) Graham Loughlan Harrison (Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 2008/15357

COUNSEL : P Menzies QC / D Kell (Plaintiff) P Strickland SC / R Mathur (Defendant)

SOLICITORS : Crown Solicitor's Office (Plaintiff) Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales (Defendant)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

FULLERTON J

24 FEBRUARY 2009

2008/15357 THE STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES v GRAHAM LOUGHLAN HARRISON

JUDGMENT 1 HER HONOUR: On 26 November 2008 I made orders providing for the defendant's extended supervision pursuant to s 17(4) of the Crimes (Serious Sex Offenders) Act 2006 ("the Act") under specified conditions. 2 On 9 December 2008 I published reasons for coming to the concluded view that despite being satisfied of the high probability that the defendant was likely to commit a further serious sex offence his continued detention could not be justified and an extended supervision order should issue (State of New South Wales v Harrison [2008] NSWSC 1306). 3 The order was expressed to be for "an initial period" of three months to allow for an assessment to be made of the defendant's suitability as a recipient of anti-libidinal hormonal treatment and to permit that assessment to be undertaken in the community under supervision before considering what further conditions would be imposed and the ultimate length of the extended supervision order. 4 With that in mind on 21 January 2009 I ordered that Dr Ellis and Dr Roberts, two court appointed psychiatrists who had given evidence at the earlier hearing, conduct further and separate examinations of the defendant for the purposes of the further conduct of the proceedings. On that date the matter was listed before me for further hearing on 16 February 2009 since the orders I made on 26 November 2008 were due to expire on 25 February 2009. 5 On 16 February 2009, by notice of motion filed instanter, the plaintiff sought an order that the extended supervision order made on 26 November 2008 be varied by extending its term for a further period of 5 years pursuant to s 13(1) of the Act. The plaintiff also sought an order directing the defendant to comply with the conditions set out in the schedule to the notice of motion for the duration of the order as extended. 6 The plaintiff tendered the following evidence in support of the motion: