Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: The State of New South Wales v Brooker [2014] NSWSC 995 Decision date: 24 July 2014 Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal Before: Hamill J (as Duty Judge) Decision: The Court orders that: (1) Pursuant to section 10A of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 ("the Act"), the defendant be subject to a further interim supervision order to take effect from 30 July 2014, for a period of 28 days. (2) Pursuant to section 11 of the Act, the defendant is directed, for the period of the interim supervision order, to comply with the conditions set out in the schedule of the Summons. (3) The matter be listed on 20 August 2014 for the plaintiff to apply for a further interim supervision order referred to in Order 1. (4) Liberty to apply to relist the matter on one days notice. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - high risk offenders - consent orders - interim supervision orders - sexual offences - psychological assessment Legislation Cited: Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: The State of New South Wales (Plaintiff) Kevin John Brooker (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: T Hammond (Plaintiff) G Scragg (Defendant) Solicitors: NSW Crown Solicitors Office (Plaintiff) File Number(s): 2014/168654 ex tempore Judgment 1HAMILL J: This is an application for orders under s 10A of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) (the Act). The orders sought are for interim supervision orders of the defendant. Such orders can be made by the court where it appears that the defendant's current custody or supervision will expire before the proceedings are finally determined and that the matters alleged in supporting documentation would, if proved, justify the making of a high risk sex offender extended supervision order. 2I am satisfied of the first of those matters and, indeed, the defendant is already subject to an interim supervision order made by his Honour Justice Harrison on 24 June 2014. 3As to making any assessment of the second matter, I need to go back to s 9 of the legislation to determine whether or not, on the material before me, a final order would be justified. The criteria are in s 9(3) of the Act and include the safety of the community and require the court to take into account the results of any assessments, and particularly risk assessments made by qualified medical practitioners or psychologists. There is a body of material already filed on behalf of the State of New South Wales but it is only necessary for me to refer to an affidavit of Samuel Ardasinski and the associated report prepared by him. 4As I have said by way of background, Justice Harrison made orders on 24 June 2014 and those orders were in the same, or more or less the same terms as those that I am invited to make today. Mr Hammond appears instructed by New South Wales Crown Solicitor's Office on behalf of the plaintiff and he also mentions the matter on behalf of the defendant, whose lawyers have indicated that they consent to either a continuation of those orders made by Justice Harrison or to any orders of an interim nature that are now sought. 5The material in the psychologist's report and risk assessment need not be gone into in any great detail, but I think I should indicate that the defendant is a seventy year old man and he has a lengthy criminal history. In particular, he has a history including a number of sexual offences, including sexual offences committed against children. Those offences have occurred in at least three States of the Commonwealth, namely New South Wales, Western Australia and Queensland. His first sexual offence occurred when he was eighteen years of age and he has from time to time committed sexual offences throughout his entire adult life. At one stage he absconded on parole from New South Wales and, whilst in breach of that parole, was convicted of sexual offending in Western Australia. 6The report to which I have referred sets out the details of those offences and provides a detailed risk assessment based upon a variety of factors, including that sexual and criminal history as outlined, the defendant's response to supervision in the past, the programs that he has undertaken by reference to a number of acknowledged risk assessment processes and criteria. Whilst the various tools that are used are by no means perfect, the consistent theme from the risk assessments made by the psychologist are that the defendant presents a high risk of committing further offences of a sexual nature. 7If the history to which I have referred and the psychologist's opinion as to the risk assessment is proved to the satisfaction of the judge hearing the application for an extended supervision order, clearly such an order would be justified. In those circumstances the provision in s 10A is engaged and I may, and in my opinion I should, make an interim order of the kind sought. 8The Court orders that: (1)Pursuant to section 10A of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 ("the Act"), the defendant be subject to a further interim supervision order to take effect from 30 July 2014, for a period of 28 days. (2)Pursuant to section 11 of the Act, the defendant is directed, for the period of the interim supervision order, to comply with the conditions set out in the schedule of the Summons. (3)The matter be listed on 20 August 2014 for the plaintiff to apply for a further interim supervision order referred to in Order 1. (4)Liberty to apply to relist the matter on one days notice. ********** DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 28 July 2014