State of New South Wales v Green (Final) [2013] NSWSC 1003

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: State of New South Wales v Green (Final) [2013] NSWSC 1003 Hearing dates: 17 July 2013 Decision date: 26 July 2013 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: R A Hulme J Decision: Extended supervision order made for a period of three years with conditions Catchwords: HIGH RISK SEX OFFENDER - application for extended supervision order - no dispute as to making of order - dispute as to duration and conditions - no question of principle Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) Cases Cited: New South Wales v KAS [2012] NSWSC 1139 New South Wales v Richardson (No 2) [2011] NSWSC 276 New South Wales v Thomas (Preliminary) [2011] NSWSC 118 New South Wales v Conway [2011] NSWSC 588 State of New South Wales v Green (Preliminary) [2013] NSWSC 637 State of New South Wales v Hill (No 4) [2010] NSWSC 1504 Category: Principal judgment Parties: State of New South Wales (Plaintiff) Leslie John Green (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: Ms G F Mahony (Plaintiff) Ms R Mathur (Defendant) Solicitors: Crown Solicitor's Office Legal Aid Commission of NSW File Number(s): 2013/112850

Judgment 1HIS HONOUR: The State of New South Wales (the State) applies for an extended supervision order for a period of 5 years in respect of Mr Leslie Green pursuant to the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW). 2It is not disputed that Mr Green is a "sex offender" within the meaning of that term in s 4 of the Act: he is over the age of 18 and he has been sentenced to imprisonment following his conviction for serious sex offences punishable by imprisonment for 7 years or more, namely aggravated indecent assault (s 61M of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)). 3I am satisfied that Mr Green is also a "high risk sex offender" within the meaning of that term in s 5B in that he is sex offender in respect of whom there is a high degree of probability that he poses an unacceptable risk of committing a serious sex offence if he is not kept under supervision. 4The test for determining whether a person poses an unacceptable risk of committing a serious sex offence pursuant to s 5B(2) (formerly s 9(2)) is, to some extent, clarified by s 5B(3) (formerly s 9(2A)). It has been the subject of definitive discussion in so many cases in this Court that repetition here is unnecessary. See, for example, New South Wales v Thomas (Preliminary) [2011] NSWSC 118; New South Wales v Conway [2011] NSWSC 588; New South Wales v KAS [2012] NSWSC 1139; and New South Wales v Richardson (No 2) [2011] NSWSC 276. 5There is substantial uniformity in the opinions of expert psychiatrists and psychologists that support the proposition that Mr Green is a high risk sex offender. Moreover, it was conceded by his counsel, Ms Mathur, that such a finding was open to be made. Given this state of affairs, I will not refer in detail to the histories obtained and the analyses carried out by the two court appointed psychiatrists and the other experts whose reports are before me. The opinions of the principal experts are encapsulated in the following. 6Dr Andrew Ellis, forensic psychiatrist, expressed the view in his report of 4 June 2013 that "Mr Green would fall into a group of persons with a risk [of] offending that is high, and greater than a theoretical average offender. Specific treatment and supervision would likely reduce this risk." 7Dr Jeremy O'Dea, forensic psychiatrist, expressed the view in his report of 6 June 2013 that "it would seem reasonable to consider that there would be a significantly high degree of probability that Mr Green would be likely to commit a further 'serious sex offence' ... in the community in the long term, in particular if ... treatment interventions were not successfully implemented." 8Mr Paul Sheehan, forensic psychologist, said in an affidavit affirmed recently, "In my risk assessment report of 25 January 2013, I assessed Mr Green as presenting a high risk of sexually re-offending relative to other adult male sexual offenders. In my view, there is no evidence to warrant any reduction in Mr Green's estimated risk at this time. I regard Mr Green's overall assessment of 'high risk' of sexual recidivism as continuing to be valid at the present time."