State of NSW v Roach [2010] NSWSC 184

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : State of NSW v Roach [2010] NSWSC 184

HEARING DATE(S) : 4 March 2010

JUDGMENT DATE : 18 March 2010

JUDGMENT OF : James J

DECISION : I make an order pursuant to s 9(1)(a) of the Act that, for a period of five years from the date of the order, the defendant be subject to an extended supervision order by complying with the conditions contained in the attached Schedule.

CATCHWORDS : Crimes (Serious Sex Offenders) Act 2006 — extended supervision order

Child Protection (Offenders Prohibition Orders) Act 2004 LEGISLATION CITED : Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 Crimes (Serious Sex Offenders) Act 2006

Cornwall v Attorney-General (NSW) [2007] NSWCA 374 CASES CITED : State of New South Wales v Thomas [2008] NSWSC 1340 The State of New South Wales v Fisk [2009] NSWSC 778 Tillman v Attorney- General (NSW) (2007) 70 NSWLR 448

PARTIES : The State of New South Wales - Plaintiff Frederick Francis Roach - Defendant

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 2009/296991

COUNSEL : D Buchanan SC / S Callan - Plaintiff D Thiering - Defendant

SOLICITORS : IV Knight, Crown Solicitor for the State of New South Wales

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

JAMES J

THURSDAY 18 MARCH 2010

2009/296991 THE STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES v FREDERICK FRANCIS ROACH

JUDGMENT 1 HIS HONOUR: This is an application by the State of New South Wales pursuant to the Crimes (Serious Sex Offenders) Act 2006 ("the Act") that the defendant be subject to an extended supervision order for a period of five years from the date of the order, on the conditions set out in the schedule to the amended summons. 2 The defendant, who was in court during the hearing of the application and who was represented by counsel, did not object to the making of an extended supervision order or to the order being for a term of five years or to any of the conditions in the schedule to the amended summons. A document setting out the conditions in the schedule to the amended summons, which had been signed by the defendant, was handed up to the court during the hearing. Although there was no opposition to any part of the order sought by the plaintiff, it is still necessary for the court to determine whether such an order should be made.