The State of New South Wales v Dillon [2016] NSWSC 256

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: The State of New South Wales v Dillon [2016] NSWSC 256 Hearing dates: 5/3/14, 7/3/14, 7/4/14, 8/8/14, 22/8/14 Date of orders: 22 August 2014 Decision date: 15 March 2016 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Hidden J Decision: Extended supervision order for 3 years, subject to schedule of conditions Catchwords: HIGH RISK SEX OFFENDER – Application by State for extended supervision order – issues as to duration of the order and some of the proposed conditions Legislation Cited: Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 Crimes Act 1900 Child Protection (Offender's Prohibition Orders) Act 2004 Summary Offences Act 1988 Weapons Prohibition Act 1998 Cases Cited: State of New South Wales v Burns [2014] NSWSC 1014 State of New South Wales v Garry Allen Conway [2011] NSWSC 925 Attorney General for the State of New South Wales v Steadman [2013] NSWSC 170 Category: Principal judgment Parties: The State of New South Wales (plaintiff) James Scott Dillon (defendant) Representation: Counsel: D T Kell (plaintiff) M Johnston (defendant)

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor (plaintiff) Legal Aid Commission (defendant) File Number(s): 2014/60403

Judgment 1. HIS HONOUR: The plaintiff, the State of New South Wales, brought proceedings against the defendant, James Gilbert Scott Dillon, under the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006. Pursuant to s 5C(1) of the Act, the State sought an extended supervision order on the basis that the defendant is a high risk sex offender within the meaning of s 5B(2). The proceedings had a rather lengthy interlocutory history, which need not be recounted. Counsel for the State, Mr David Kell, and for the defendant, Mr Matthew Johnston, are both very experienced in matters of this kind and I was assisted by their refinement of the issues in written and oral submissions. 2. On 22 August 2014, I made an extended supervision order for 3 years, subject to a schedule of conditions. These are my reasons for that decision. 3. The defendant did not oppose the making of an extended supervision order, although there were issues as to the length of the order and some of the conditions sought by the State. Mr Johnston acknowledged that the statutory prerequisites for such an order were met. In particular, it was accepted, for the purpose of s 5B(2), that I would be satisfied to a high degree of probability that the defendant poses an unacceptable risk of committing a serious sex offence if he is not kept under supervision. Nevertheless, that is a matter which I must determine for myself, having regard to the matters set out in s 9(3). In the light of the material before me, I was so satisfied. 4. The defendant is now 48 years old. He had a disturbed background. His parents are deceased, and he has had no contact with his siblings for a long time. He has children of his own, now adults, with whom he has no ongoing contact. His education was limited. He has a criminal record for a variety of offences, starting when he was a juvenile, and a long history of substance abuse.