State of New South Wales v Hippett (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 1464

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: State of New South Wales v Hippett (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 1464 Hearing dates: 10 October 2016 Date of orders: 14 October 2016 Decision date: 14 October 2016 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Schmidt J Decision: Order made pursuant to ss 17(1)(a), 5C(1) and 9(1)(a) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 ("the Act"), that the defendant be subject to a high risk sex offender extended supervision order for a period of 3.5 years from the date of the order, and pursuant to s 11 of the Act direct that the defendant comply with the conditions set out below. Catchwords: HIGH RISK OFFENDER – final hearing – application for extended supervision order – high risk sex offender – terms of proposed conditions – order made Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) Cases Cited: Cornwall v Attorney General for New South Wales [2007] NSWCA 374 Lynn v State of New South Wales [2016] NSWCA 57 State of New South Wales v Hippett [2016] NSWSC 1180 Category: Principal judgment Parties: The State of New South Wales (Plaintiff) Douglas Hippett (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: Ms G Wright (Plaintiff) Mr D O'Neil (Defendant)

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor's Office Legal Aid (NSW) File Number(s): 2016/223374 Publication restriction: None

Judgment 1. Mr Hippett was in custody serving a sentence for an offence of aggravated break and enter and commit a serious indictable offence in breach of s 112 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), which he had committed in March 2013 at Walgett in New South Wales, when 2016 Garling J made an interim continuing detention order against him under the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) (see State of New South Wales v Hippett [2016] NSWSC 1180). 2. His Honour was satisfied on the evidence then led that "the Court at a final hearing would be justified in finding, to a high degree of probability, that Mr Hippett poses an unacceptable risk of committing a serious sex offence if he is not kept under supervision or in detention" (at [85]). 3. The State now pursues final orders for Mr Hippett's extended supervision once released from custody. While Mr Hippett does not consent to the making of the orders sought, he did concede at the hearing that the evidence on which the State relied was capable of satisfying the onus which fell upon it under the High Risk Offenders Act, to establish the circumstances in which the Court is empowered to make such orders. The parties were also almost entirely agreed as to the conditions which should be imposed on Mr Hippett, in the event that the Court was satisfied that orders for his extended supervision should be made. 4. Mr Hippett's non-parole period expired on 20 March 2015, but he was refused release on parole. The term of his sentence expired on 20 September 2016. He is now a 21 year old Aboriginal man, with a history of serious sexual offending which explains the concessions that he made at the final hearing. 5. For the reasons which follow, I am well satisfied on the evidence then led that the orders which the State finally pressed by way of the further amended summons it filed at the hearing, must be made. That conclusion is inevitable, the evidence unarguably establishing as it does, to a high degree of probability that Mr Hippett poses an unacceptable risk of committing other serious sex offences, if he is not kept under the supervision proposed (see s 5B(2)).