State of New South Wales v Cruse (No. 2) [2014] NSWSC 128

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: State of New South Wales v Cruse (No. 2) [2014] NSWSC 128 Hearing dates: 26 & 27 February 2014 Decision date: 14 March 2014 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Davies J Decision: 1. Orders that pursuant to s 9(1)(a) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 ("the Act") the Defendant be subject to an extended supervision order for a period of 5 years from the date of the order. 2. Orders that pursuant to s 11 of the Act, for the period of the extended supervision order, the Defendant is directed to comply with the conditions set out in the Schedule to this Order. 3. Notes that: a. Pursuant to s 10(2) of the Act, the Defendant's obligations under the extended supervision order are suspended while the Defendant is in lawful custody whether under this or any other Act or law. b. Lawful custody for the purposes of s 10(2) of the Act may include detention as an involuntary patient in a mental health facility under the Mental Health Act 2007, or escorted leave from any such facility, at least in circumstances where the Defendant's freedom is directly controlled and limited. 4. Directs that access to the Court file in respect of any document shall not be granted without leave of a Judge of the Court. If any application is made by a non-party in respect of any document, the parties are to be notified by the registrar so as to enable them to be heard. 5. Grants liberty to apply on two day's notice. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 - serious sex offender - sexual offending commenced when offender was 17 - multiple offences - offending when under the influence of drugs and alcohol - application for extended supervision order - whether offender an unacceptable risk of commission of further serious sex offences - conditions of supervision order - whether offender should be barred from viewing R18+ material - whether offender should be prevented from access to offender's young sons - whether s 11(g) of the Act inconsistent with Family Law Act - requirement to take prescribed medication - length of order Legislation Cited: Bail Act 1982 (WA) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) Crimes (Serious Sex Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) Crimes (Serious Sex Offenders) Amendment Act 2013 (NSW) Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Family Law Regulations 1984 (Cth) Family Violence Act 2004 (Tas) Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (Vic) Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) Mental Health Act 2007 (NSW) Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW) Telecommunications Act 1997 (Cth) Cases Cited: AA v BB [2013] VSC 120 Commonwealth of Australia v The Australian Capital Territory [2013] HCA 55 Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v GTR [2008] WASCA 187; 198 A Crim R 149 Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Williams [2007] WASC 206; 176 A Crim R 110 Dunne v P [2004] WASCA 239; (2004) 29 WAR 232 Faheem Khalid Lodhi v Regina [2007] NSWCCA 360 Juries Against Illegal Laws Incorporated v The State of Tasmania [2010] FCA 578 P v P [1994] HCA 20; (1994) 181 CLR 583 State of New South Wales v Conway [2011] NSWSC 976 State of New South Wales v Richardson (No. 2) [2011] NSWSC 276; (2011) 210 A Crim R 220 The State of NSW v Colin John Fisk [2009] NSWSC 778 Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465 Victoria v The Commonwealth (1937) 58 CLR 618 Category: Principal judgment Parties: State of New South Wales (Plaintiff) Edward Frances Cruse (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: H Bennett (Plaintiff) G Scragg (Defendant) Solicitors: Crown Solicitors Office (Plaintiff) Legal Aid NSW (Defendant) File Number(s): 2013/339906