Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: State of NSW v De La Torre [2014] NSWSC 1212 Hearing dates: 1 September 2014 Decision date: 01 September 2014 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Adamson J Decision: Access to the Supreme Court file granted to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and solicitor and counsel representing Roy De La Torre Catchwords: ACCESS - documents relevant to imminent sentence hearing Legislation Cited: Crimes (Serious Offenders) Act 2006 Cases Cited: State of NSW v Roy De La Torre [2011] NSWSC 1263 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: State of New South Wales (Plaintiff) Roy De La Torre (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: G Hazlitt (Plaintiff) B Thomson (Defendant) Solicitors: Office of Director of Public Prosecutions (Plaintiff) Crown Solicitors (Defendant) File Number(s): 2011/244925 Judgment 1The DPP applies, by notice of motion filed in Court this morning, for access to the Court file. The DPP relies in support of his application on an affidavit of Mary Papanis of 22 August 2014. 2This application arises by reason of an order made by Garling J in the substantive proceedings, State of NSW v Roy De La Torre [2011] NSWSC 1263, in which the plaintiff sought an extended supervision order pursuant to the Crimes (Serious Sex Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) (the Act). 3On 28 October 2011 Garling J made orders in respect of the defendant pursuant to the Act. His Honour also made a direction that, in the event that any application for access is made by a non-party to the matter in respect of any document contained on the Court file, the Registrar of the Court is to notify the parties to the summons and provide them with an opportunity to make submissions on whether access should be granted. 4The sentence hearing in respect of the defendant is listed this Thursday before Mahony DCJ. The DPP seeks access to the Court file in this matter for the purposes of making submissions at that hearing. 5Mr Hazlitt, who appears for the DPP, has informed me of the relevance of the material, which is apparent in any event from the material itself, which includes psychologic and psychiatric reports concerning the offender. 6Mr Thomson, who is instructed by the Crown Solicitor's Office and who appears on behalf of the Attorney General, informs me that the psychological and psychiatric material on the Court file has been reviewed on behalf of the Attorney General to ascertain whether there is any material of a confidential nature. Those responsible for that review have satisfied themselves that there is no such material within the psychological and psychiatric reports. Indeed, he submitted, and I agree, that as a matter of fairness to the offender it is desirable that the sentencing judge have access to such material as is contained in the Court file. 7Accordingly, I make an order that access to the Supreme Court file and its contents be granted to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and solicitor and counsel representing the defendant. ********** 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: 03 September 2014