State of New South Wales v King [2015] NSWSC 74

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: State of New South Wales v King [2015] NSWSC 74 Hearing dates: 13 February 2015 Date of orders: 17 February 2015 Decision date: 17 February 2015 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: R A Hulme J Decision: Extended supervision order for a period of five years with conditions Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act – application for extended supervision order – dispute as to length of order and certain conditions – where defendant diagnosed with paedophilia and substance use disorder – where assessed risk of re-offending is high – order made for five years Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) Cases Cited: R v King [2009] NSWCCA 117 State of New South Wales v Burns [2014] NSWSC 1014 State of New South Wales v Green (Final) [2013] NSWSC 1003 Category: Principal judgment Parties: State of New South Wales (Plaintiff) Ronald Dean King (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: Ms G Wright (Plaintiff) Mr P Johnson (Defendant) Solicitors: Crown Solicitors Legal Aid NSW File Number(s): 2014/313078

Judgment 1. HIS HONOUR: The State of New South Wales ("the State") has applied for an extended supervision order for a period of five years in respect of Mr Ronald Dean King ("the defendant") pursuant to the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) ("the Act"). 2. The State commenced proceedings by the filing of a summons in this Court on 24 October 2014. A preliminary hearing was held by Hidden J on 21 November 2014. His Honour appointed two psychiatrists, Dr Andrew Ellis and Dr Jeremy O'Dea, to conduct examinations of the defendant and furnish reports. Her Honour also made an interim supervision order. Such order has been continued by other judges of the court until now. 3. The defendant does not consent but he does not contest the making of an order. The dispute in the matter is confined to the length of the order and the appropriateness of certain conditions proposed by the State. Notwithstanding the concession, it is necessary for me to be satisfied that all of the statutory pre-conditions for the making of an order are established. 4. A number of affidavits and a substantial volume of documentary evidence was read and tendered without objection and none of the deponents and authors were required for cross-examination.