NSW Caselaw
Supreme Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: State of New South Wales v Jeffery Wayne Davie [2017] NSWSC 600 Hearing dates: 7, 22 July 2016 Date of orders: 22 July 2016 Decision date: 16 May 2017 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Rothman J Decision: 1 Leave is granted to the plaintiff to file an Amended Summons;
2 Pursuant to s 17(1)(b) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 ("the Act") the defendant is subject to a Continuing Detention Order for a period of one month that commences on 22 July 2016 and expires at midnight on 21 August 2016;
3 Pursuant to s 20(1) of the Act, the Court issues a warrant for the committal of the defendant to a correctional centre for the period specified in Order 2 above;
4 Pursuant to s 9(1)(a) of the Act, the defendant is subject to an Extended Supervision Order for a period of three years and nine months that commences upon the day that the Continuing Detention Order made in Order 2 above expires;
5 Pursuant to s 11 of the Act, the defendant is directed to comply with the conditions set out in the Amended Schedule to the Amended Summons filed by the plaintiff and attached to these Orders for the duration of the Extended Supervision Order made in Order 4 above. Catchwords: EXTENDED SUPERVISION ORDERS – high risk sex offender – implementation of anti-libidinal medication regime – until effective ESO Conditions insufficient to ameliorate risk adequately – CDO for period of initial medication then ESO Legislation Cited: Child Protection (Offenders Prohibition Orders) Act 2004 Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 Crimes Act 1900 Summary Offences Act 1988 Cases Cited: Anderson v State of New South Wales [2016] NSWCA 86 Lynn v State of New South Wales (2016) 91 NSWLR 636; [2016] NSWCA 57 State of New South Wales v Donovan (2015) 90 NSWLR 389; [2015] NSWCA 280 State of New South Wales v Banks [2016] NSWSC 926 Category: Principal judgment Parties: State of New South Wales (Plaintiff) Jeffrey Wayne Davie (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: H Bennett (Plaintiff) G Scragg SC (Defendant)
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate