State of New South Wales v Veeran [2015] NSWSC 75

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: State of New South Wales v Veeran [2015] NSWSC 75 Hearing dates: 12 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 2006 - application for extended supervision order - dispute as to length of order and whether electronic monitoring condition should be imposed – where assessed risk of re-offending is moderate to high – where offender denies responsibility and has resisted treatment – order made for five years including electronic monitoring condition Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) Cases Cited: State of New South Wales v Conway [2011] NSWSC 976 Category: Principal judgment Parties: State of New South Wales (Plaintiff) Davendran Veeran (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: Mr T Hammond (Plaintiff) Mr M Johnston (Defendant) Solicitors: Crown Solicitors Legal Aid NSW File Number(s): 2014/266521

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 Davendran Veeran 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 10 September 2014. A preliminary hearing was held by Hidden J on 8 October 2014. His Honour appointed Dr Andrew Ellis, psychiatrist, and Ms Jenny Howell, psychologist, to conduct examinations of Mr Veeran and furnish reports. His Honour reserved his decision as to the making of an interim supervision order. On 19 November 2014 his Honour gave judgment and made an order pursuant to s 10A of the Act that Mr Veeran be subject to an interim supervision order. Such order has been continued by other judges of the court until now. 3. Mr Veeran 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 to whether one of the conditions proposed by the State should be included. 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.