State of New South Wales v McQuilton [2014] NSWSC 11

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: State of New South Wales v McQuilton [2014] NSWSC 11 Hearing dates: 20 December 2013 Decision date: 24 January 2014 Before: R A Hulme J Decision: Extended supervision order for 2 years 6 months with conditions Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 - high risk sex offender extended supervision order - not repeat offender - dependence on deviant pornography - persistent rape fantasies - diagnoses of various psychotic disorders - unacceptable risk to the community - supervision order for a period of 2 years 6 months Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) Category: Principal judgment Parties: State of New South Wales (Plaintiff) Daniel Anthony McQuilton (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: Ms G Mahony (Plaintiff) Mr G Scragg (Defendant) Solicitors: Crown Solicitors Legal Aid NSW File Number(s): 2013/320830

Judgment 1The Attorney General, on behalf of the State of New South Wales ("the plaintiff"), has applied for a high risk sex offender extended supervision order in respect of Daniel Anthony McQuilton ("the defendant") pursuant to the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) ("the Act"). 2There is no dispute that the defendant is what the Act calls a "high risk sex offender". Having considered the material relied upon by the plaintiff, for the reasons set out below I am satisfied to a high degree of probability that the defendant poses an unacceptable risk of committing a serious sex offence if he is not kept under supervision: s 5B(2) of the Act. 3There was also no dispute that an extended supervision order should be made. There was a dispute about the duration of such an order but ultimately the parties agreed upon that. There remained a dispute about the conditions to be imposed. 4The making of any extended supervision order imposes significantly upon the liberty of the subject. For this reason, and notwithstanding the concession, it is necessary to ensure that all of the statutory requirements have been met and the making of an order is justified.