State of New South Wales v Keech [2015] NSWSC 1898

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: State of New South Wales v Keech [2015] NSWSC 1898 Hearing dates: 10 December 2015 Date of orders: 15 December 2015 Decision date: 15 December 2015 Before: R A Hulme J Decision: Extended supervision order for a period of 5 years with conditions Catchwords: CIVIL LAW – high risk sex offender – final hearing under Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) – application for extended supervision order for 5 years – where defendant has long history of sexual offending – ongoing risk of committing further sexual offences – poor history of compliance with requirements of conditional liberty – necessary and appropriate to make an extended supervision order for 5 years Legislation Cited: Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) ss 5B, 5C, 9,11 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) s 12 Summary Offences Act 1988 (NSW) s 11G Category: Principal judgment Parties: State of New South Wales (Plaintiff) Christian Paul Keech (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: Mr T Hammond (Plaintiff) Mr D Barrow (Defendant)

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor's Office Legal Aid NSW File Number(s): 2015/257621

Judgment 1. HIS HONOUR: The State of New South Wales ("the State") has applied for an extended supervision order ("ESO") in respect of Mr Christian Paul Keech pursuant to the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) ("the Act"). Mr Keech is currently on parole, expiring on 4 February 2016. 2. Proceedings were commenced in this Court by the filing of a summons by the State on 2 September 2015. A preliminary hearing was held before McCallum J on 17 September 2015. Pursuant to her Honour's orders, two psychiatrists, Dr Anthony Samuels and Dr Adam Martin, conducted examinations of Mr Keech and furnished reports to the Court. 3. At the final hearing before me on 10 December 2015, Mr Keech accepted that the Court would likely find that the statutory preconditions to the making of an ESO would be established and as a consequence he did not oppose it. The State contended that the duration of the order should be 5 years but Mr Keech argued that 3 years was a more appropriate period. Mr Keech also objected to one of the proposed conditions. 4. For the reasons which follow I have concluded that the order should be made and that it should be for a period of 5 years.