State of New South Wales v Brookes (Final) [2017] NSWSC 215

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: State of New South Wales v Brookes (Final) [2017] NSWSC 215 Hearing dates: 10 February 2017 Decision date: 10 March 2017 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: N Adams J Decision: (1) Order pursuant to ss 5C and 9(1)(a) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) that the defendant be subject to a high risk sex offender extended supervision order for a period of five years from the date of this order. (2) Order pursuant to s 11 of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) directing that the defendant, for the period of the high risk sex offender extended supervision order, comply with the conditions set out below in the schedule to this judgment. Catchwords: HIGH RISK SEX OFFENDER – application for extended supervision order under the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 – finding that the defendant is a high risk sex offender – duration of order Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), Part 3, Division 10, s 61M(2) Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 (NSW) Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), ss 3, 4, 5, 5B, 5I, 6, 7(4), 9(3), 13(1) Crimes (Serious Sex Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) Cases Cited: Attorney General (NSW) v Hayter [2007] NSWSC 983 NSW v Manners [2008] NSWSC 1242 Lynn v State of New South Wales [2016] NSWCA 57 State of New South Wales v Brookes [2008] NSWSC 473 State of New South Wales v Brookes [2008] NSWCA 212 State of New South Wales v Brookes [2010] NSWSC 728 State of New South Wales v Brookes (Preliminary) [2016] NSWSC 1593 State of New South Wales v Conway [2011] NSWSC 925 State of New South Wales v De La Torre [2011] NSWSC 1263 State of New South Wales v Fisk [2013] NSWSC 364 State of New South Wales v Kamm (Final) [2016] NSWSC 1 State of New South Wales v Manners [2008] NSWSC 1376 State of New South Wales v Wilde [2014] NSWSC 305 Category: Principal judgment Parties: State of New South Wales (Plaintiff) Alexandria George Brookes (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: Mr P Aitken (Plaintiff) Mr P Skinner (Defendant)