State of New South Wales v Evers [2015] NSWSC 1724

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: State of New South Wales v Evers [2015] NSWSC 1724 Hearing dates: 13 November 2015 Date of orders: 19 November 2015 Decision date: 19 November 2015 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Campbell J Decision: See [68] Catchwords: CIVIL – extended supervision orders – making of final violent offender orders – where defendant's criminal responsibility for the murder of 5 people reduced to manslaughter by reason of "diminished responsibility" – where defendant's schizophrenia incurable – whether certain conditions sought to be imposed are necessary to manage unacceptable risk identified Legislation Cited: Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) Cases Cited: Attorney General for New South Wales v Tillman [2007] NSWCA 119; Cornwell v Attorney General for New South Wales [2007] NSWCA 374; R v Paul Anthony Evers Supreme Court of NSW, 25 February 1992, unrep; State of New South Wales v Evers [2015] NSWSC 1231 Category: Principal judgment Parties: The State of New South Wales (Plaintiff) Paul Anthony Evers (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: Dr Hayley Bennet (Plaintiff) Ms Ragni Mathur (Defendant)

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor's Office (Plaintiff) Legal Aid New South Wales (Defendant) File Number(s): 2015/213290

judgment 1. Under s 5H Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) (the Act) the State of New South Wales (the State) has applied for an extended supervision order against Paul Anthony Evers. Mr Evers does not dispute the following important matters (written submissions 10 November 2015): 1. That he is a violent offender as defined because he is an adult who has been sentenced to imprisonment following his conviction for a serious violence offence; 2. His offending falls within the definition of serious violence offence because he was convicted of five counts of manslaughter (a serious indictable offence) which, in his case, consisted of conduct which caused the death of five other persons committed with the intention of causing those deaths. That latter condition is satisfied because his criminal responsibility for what would have been murder was reduced to manslaughter by reason of the then available partial defence of "diminished responsibility" by reason of abnormality of the mind. This notwithstanding the element of intent remains; 3. When the State applied for the order (by summons dated 21st July 2015) he was a supervised violent offender because he had been released to parole on 15th June 2015 to serve the balance of his sentence, which expired on 29th August 2015. 1. Mr Evers does not concede, but accepts, on the available evidence, that the Court is likely to find that he is a "high risk violent offender" posing an unacceptable risk of committing a serious violent offence if he is not kept under supervision within the meaning of s 5E of the Act. The real issue between the parties relates to the duration of the orders sought, and the conditions which this court considers appropriate for him to comply with in obeying the order. 2. Given Mr Evers concessions and his lack of serious opposition to the imposition of an order, it is appropriate to deal with the questions posed by s 5E of the Act with greater brevity than might otherwise have been the case.