State of New South Wales v Donovan [2015] NSWCA 280

Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: State of New South Wales v Donovan [2015] NSWCA 280 Hearing dates: 9 September 2015 Decision date: 16 September 2015 Before: Beazley P; Macfarlan JA; Leeming JA Decision: 1. Appeal dismissed.

2. Extend the stay of the extended supervision order until 11 am, 17 September 2015.

3. Renew the interim detention order and warrant until 11 am, 17 September 2015. Catchwords: APPEAL – nature of appeal under Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), s 22 – primary judge not satisfied that "adequate supervision" would not be provided by an extended supervision order – appellate review of evaluative judgment – necessity for State to show error of law or fact

CRIMINAL LAW – high risk violent offender – primary judge made continuing supervision order, but refused to make a continuing detention order – appeal by State – nature of appeal – Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), ss 5E, 5F and 5G considered – whether primary judge erred in construing "adequate supervision" – whether failure to give primacy to legislative object – whether primary judge failed to conduct an evaluative judgment of unacceptable risk – whether no basis for finding that respondent would not re-offend suddenly and catastrophically within days of his supervised release - whether failure to give reasons – whether adverse inference available from offender's failure to give evidence – whether failure to take into account mandatory relevant considerations – no error made out – appeal dismissed Legislation Cited: Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), Pt 1A, Div 2, Pt 3, Div 3A, ss 3, 5E, 5F, 5G, 9, 11, 12, 13C, 15, 17, 18B, 18C, 22, Sch 2, cl 11 Crimes (Serious Sex Offenders) Amendment Act 2013 (NSW) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 35 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 36.15 Cases Cited: Attorney General for New South Wales v Tillman [2007] NSWCA 119 Attorney General of New South Wales v McGuire [2013] NSWSC 1862 Attorney General of New South Wales v McGuire [2015] NSWSC 152 Attorney-General (Qld) v Francis [2006] QCA 324; [2007] 1 Qd R 396 Attorney-General (Qld) v Lawrence [2014] QCA 220 Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Yeo [2010] QCA 69 Carr v Western Australia [2007] HCA 47; 232 CLR 138 Construction Forestry Mining & Energy Union v Mammoet Australia Pty Ltd [2013] HCA 36; 248 CLR 619 Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Boral Resources (Vic) Pty Ltd [2015] HCA 21; 89 ALJR 622 Fardon v Attorney-General (Qld) [2004] HCA 46; 223 CLR 575 Goodman v Windeyer (1980) 144 CLR 490 Independent Commission Against Corruption v Cunneen [2015] HCA 14; 89 ALJR 475 MH6 v Mental Health Review Board [2009] VSCA 184; 25 VR 382 Nigro v Secretary to the Department of Justice [2013] VSCA 213; 304 ALR 535 Norbis v Norbis (1986) 161 CLR 513 Rich v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2004] HCA 42; 220 CLR 129 Singer v Berghouse (1994) 181 CLR 201 State of New South Wales v Donovan (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 1288 State of New South Wales v Donovan [2015] NSWCA 273 State of New South Wales v Donovan [2015] NSWSC 1254 State of New South Wales v Donovan [2015] NSWSC 877 State of New South Wales v Mackey (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 1153 Vigolo v Bostin [2005] HCA 11; 221 CLR 191 Warren v Coombes (1979) 142 CLR 531 Williams v The Queen (1986) 161 CLR 278 Texts Cited: New South Wales Legislative Assembly, Parliamentary Debates (Hansard), 29 March 2006 Category: Principal judgment Parties: State of New South Wales (Appellant) Brian James Donovan (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: N Sharp, A Avery-Williams (Appellant) M Johnston (Respondent)