State of New South Wales v Sutton (No 2) [2017] NSWSC 875

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: State of New South Wales v Sutton (No 2) [2017] NSWSC 875 Hearing dates: 30 June 2017 Date of orders: 30 June 2017 Decision date: 30 June 2017 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Schmidt J Decision: Orders made in terms sought by the State. Catchwords: HIGH RISK OFFENDER – final hearing – application for final extended supervision order – terms of proposed conditions – length of order sought opposed – orders sought 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) NSWLR 636; [2016] NSWCA 57 State of New South Wales v Scerri [2012] NSWSC 271 State of New South Wales v Sutton [2017] NSWSC 787 Category: Principal judgment Parties: State of New South Wales (Plaintiff) Eric Mitchell Sutton (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: Ms G Wright (Plaintiff) M S Hall (Defendant)

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor's Office (Plaintiff) Legal Aid NSW (Defendant) File Number(s): 2017/106421 Publication restriction: None

Judgment 1. By its summons the State sought both interim and final extended supervision orders under the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) against Mr Sutton, on its case a high risk violent offender, as defined in s 5B. In State of New South Wales v Sutton [2017] NSWSC 787 McCallum J stood over the hearing of the application for interim orders to 30 June 2017, when the application for final orders was listed for hearing. Interim orders were not then opposed, but in issue was the question of where Mr Sutton should be permitted to reside. 2. On final hearing orders, under ss 5F and 9 of the Act were sought for a period of three years and if necessary, an interim supervision order under s 10B for a period of 28 days, from 1 July 2017. The necessity for that application was because, given the requirements of the statutory scheme, it was common ground that if orders are to be made against Mr Sutton under the Act, whether interim or final, they must be made before 1 July. 3. Mr Sutton did not oppose a final extended supervision order being made, but he took issue with the length of the order sought. On the case he advanced, the order would only be made for a period of 18 months. 4. On hearing the parties today, I was satisfied that their common position, that Mr Sutton is a "high risk violent offender", as defined in s 5E in respect of whom a final extended supervision order should be made, had to be accepted, given all of the evidence led. I was also satisfied that the order should be made for a term of three years. Accordingly I made orders in terms sought by the State, which appear below. 5. These are the reasons for those conclusions. 6. In evidence were the reports of forensic psychiatrists who examined Mr Sutton in June 2017, Dr Ellis and Dr Martin, as well as affidavits sworn by Mr Martin, a solicitor in April 2017, which went to Mr Sutton's criminal history; a risk assessment report prepared by Mr Ardasinski in August 2016; a risk management report prepared by Mr Elsayed in November 2016; Mr Elsayed's 2017 affidavits, which explained the outcome of the assessment of proposed post release residence for Mr Sutton; and Mr Yeomans' 2017 affidavit which explained what was proposed in respect of electronic monitoring of Mr Sutton and his case management.