State of New South Wales v Strong [2016] NSWSC 1041

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: State of New South Wales v Strong [2016] NSWSC 1041 Hearing dates: 21 July 2016 Date of orders: 29 July 2016 Decision date: 29 July 2016 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Harrison J Decision: Order that the defendant be made the subject of a high risk sex offender continuing detention order for a period of 2 years from today. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – serious sex offender – whether defendant a high risk sex offender – whether a high risk sex offender extended supervision order or continuing detention order should be made Legislation Cited: Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 Mental Health Act 2007 Cases Cited: R v Strong (2000) 141 A Crim R 56 Category: Principal judgment Parties: State of New South Wales (Plaintiff) Robert John Strong (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: G Wright (Plaintiff) S Hall (Defendant)

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor's Office (Plaintiff) Legal Aid New South Wales (Defendant) File Number(s): 2016/80447 Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment 1. HIS HONOUR: By summons filed on 14 March 2016, the State of New South Wales seeks orders against Robert John Strong pursuant to the Crimes (High Risk) Offenders Act 2006. The State seeks an order that Mr Strong be the subject of a high risk sex offender continuing detention order for a period of three years or in the alternative that he be the subject of a high risk sex offender extended supervision order for a period of five years. Mr Strong is currently incarcerated pursuant to an interim detention order that expires on 6 August 2016. 2. On 4 April 2016, Hall J made orders under s 15(4) of the Act appointing Dr Andrew Ellis and Dr Adam Martin, each a qualified psychiatrist, to conduct separate psychiatric examinations of Mr Strong and to report to the Court upon their findings. The doctors' reports, both dated 10 May 2016, have been tendered in these proceedings. 3. The nature of these proceedings, the details of the applicable legislation and the principles that apply to its implementation by the Court have been the subject of repeated exposition in a large number of similar applications of this kind. It is unnecessary to recount those matters again. It is sufficient to observe that I can only make a continuing detention order if I am satisfied that Mr Strong is a high risk sex offender and that adequate supervision will not be provided by an extended supervision order. The test for making both orders requires me to be satisfied to a high degree of probability that Mr Strong poses an unacceptable risk of committing a serious sex offence if he is not kept under supervision. 4. The State contends in this case that, by reason of the nature of his risks, and given that suitable post-release accommodation and support services are not currently available to Mr Strong, I ought to be satisfied that adequate supervision of him will not be provided under an extended supervision order and that a continuing detention order is required. 5. It is conceded by Mr Strong that he is a sex offender by reason of his relevant offending history and also that he would be assessed as a high risk sex offender upon the basis of the material provided by the State, including the reports of doctors Ellis and Martin. Those concessions are uncontroversial and I would have made findings to the same effect if required. It is implicit in his opposition to the making of a continuing detention order, however, that Mr Strong maintains that adequate supervision will be provided by the making of an extended supervision order and that the required preconditions for the making of a continuing detention order have not been established. 6. The differences between the parties can be briefly highlighted. The State submits that Mr Strong will not be adequately supervised by an extended supervision order for a number of reasons. 7. First, the relevant staff of Corrective Services NSW have made diligent efforts to locate suitable post-release accommodation and support services for Mr Strong. These efforts have so far proved unproductive. 8. Secondly, the expert evidence unanimously predicts that if Mr Strong is released into the community he would require close supervision, including physical monitoring, as well as the support of an agency suitable to meet his needs. He has spent virtually his entire adult life in custody and requires significant and constant direction to enable him to maintain his psychiatric functioning and abstinence from substances and to assist him with daily living activities. Suitable and stable accommodation is an essential component of extended supervision and is not apparently available. 9. Thirdly, and in a related context, without accommodation and appropriate post-support, Mr Strong presents a real risk of resuming drug and alcohol consumption, of ceasing both his anti-libidinal and anti-psychotic medication with an associated decline in his mental health. Each of these matters, taken alone or in combination, would increase the risk of Mr Strong committing a further serious sex offence. Dr Ellis has expressed a preference for Mr Strong to be detained and treated in a secure forensic psychiatric hospital but there is no obvious procedure to ensure that such accommodation will become available. 10. Mr Strong on the contrary submits that none of these matters warrants the making of a continuing detention order but that the State's concerns can be adequately addressed by an extended supervision order for a period of five years.