Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: State of New South Wales v Sines [2017] NSWSC 890 Hearing dates: 4 July 2017 Decision date: 04 July 2017 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: R A Hulme J Decision: 1. Pursuant to s 10B and 10C(1) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 ("the Act") the defendant is to be subject to an interim supervision order from 10 July 2017 for a period of 28 days. 2. Pursuant to s 11 of the Act, the defendant is directed to comply with the conditions set out in Schedule A to the Amended Summons filed on 5 May 2017 for the duration of the interim supervision order made in Order 1. Catchwords: CIVIL LAW – high risk violent offender – Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 –application for extended supervision order – index offence of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm – history of repeated criminal offending – sentence of imprisonment of 7 years with non-parole period of 5 years and 3 months – term of sentence to expire 10 July 2017 – interim supervision order under s 10B of Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act sought – defendant accepted into full-time residential rehabilitation program at Glebe House –– defendant participated in various rehabilitation programs in custody but no proven long-term change demonstrated –interim supervision order made Legislation Cited: Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) s 10B Cases Cited: State of New South Wales v Baldwin [2016] NSWSC 1141 State of New South Wales v Sines [2017] NSWSC 592 State of NSW v Lynn [2013] NSWSC 1147 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: State of New South Wales (Plaintiff) Peter James Sines (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: Mr C McGorey (Plaintiff) Mr P Coady (Defendant) Solicitors: Crown Solicitor's Office Legal Aid NSW File Number(s): 2017/111393 Judgment 1. HIS HONOUR: The State of New South Wales applies for a high risk violent offender extended supervision order in respect of Peter James Sines under the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) ("the Act"). 2. Proceedings were commenced by the filing of a summons on 12 April 2017. An amended summons was filed in court when the matter came before Wilson J on 5 May 2017 for a preliminary hearing. Wilson J made orders pursuant to s 7(4) of the Act appointing a psychiatrist and a psychologist to examine Mr Sines and to furnish reports to the Court. The reports of Mr Patrick Sheehan, forensic psychologist, dated 26 June 2017 and of Dr Yolisha Singh, forensic psychiatrist, dated 30 June 2017, are now to hand. 3. Mr Sines is presently in custody serving a sentence of imprisonment of 7 years with a non-parole period of 5 years 3 months dating from 11 July 2010 for the index offence of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. He has not been granted parole. The total term of the sentence will expire on 10 July 2017. 4. The final hearing of the State's application is listed on 21 July 2017. 5. The State now seeks an interim supervision order under s 10B of the Act. The Court has power to make such an order on the basis that Mr Sines' current custody will expire before the proceedings are determined, provided that the Court is satisfied "that the matters alleged in the supporting documentation would, if proved, justify the making of a high risk violent offender extended supervision order". 6. In written submissions it is said that Mr Sines resists any final orders being made but concedes that it would be open to the Court to make interim orders, given that the nature of the test applying to preliminary hearings is "not a stringent one": State of NSW v Lynn [2013] NSWSC 1147 at [18] (Button J); State of New South Wales v Baldwin [2016] NSWSC 1141 at [7] (Wilson J). That resistance to the making of any orders requiring supervision was confirmed by counsel at the hearing today. 7. There is no dispute that the various statutory preconditions to the making of orders are satisfied. The offence for which Mr Sines is presently serving a term of imprisonment meets the definition of a "serious violence offence" in s 5A(1)(a) of the Act. He thereby qualifies as a "violent offender" within the definition of that term in s 4. Mr Sines can be made the subject of a high risk violent offender extended supervision order because, as it is conceded, he is a "supervised violent offender" for the purposes of s 5J of the Act. 8. In these circumstances, a high risk violent offender extended supervision order can be made if the Court is satisfied "to a high degree of probability that [Mr Sines] poses an unacceptable risk of committing a serious violence offence if he … is not kept under supervision": s 5E(2). A "serious violence offence" is one described in s 5A; the most straightforward example being causing death or grievous bodily harm by intentional killing or causing actual or grievous bodily harm. 9. Wilson J provided a summary of relevant matters in her judgment on the preliminary hearing which culminated in her appointing the two experts to examine Mr Sines and provide reports: State of New South Wales v Sines [2017] NSWSC 592. That summary dealt with Mr Sines' background generally as well as his history of repeated criminal offending. With respect, she has done so accurately and sufficiently for present purposes; it would serve no purpose for me to replicate that endeavour. 10. The evidence now before the Court is that Mr Sines has been accepted into a full-time residential rehabilitation program at Glebe House. It is proposed that he be taken there immediately upon his release from custody next Monday. It is proposed that Glebe House will be the address at which he is to reside pursuant to the proposed condition requiring Mr Sines to live at an address approved by his departmental supervising officer. 11. At the hearing today there were submissions made for and against the inclusion of a condition requiring electronic monitoring. However, it came as something of a surprise to both counsel when it was noticed that the proposed conditions under which Mr Sines would be supervised do not include electronic monitoring at all. 12. Mr Coady took me to parts of the evidence going to his client's participation in various rehabilitation programs whilst in custody over the past two years or so. It is unnecessary to go to the detail but for Mr Sines' benefit I acknowledge that it does appear that he is now more motivated to address the underlying causes of his past offending. However, as Dr Singh observed (at p 9), "sustained insight that motivates long-term change is yet to be demonstrated". Further, she wrote, "Mr Sines is also likely to have problems with consistently engaging with treatment and supervision indicated by a history of rapid relapse into substance use and recent infractions in custody" (p14). 13. For the purposes of s 7(4) of the Act (requiring the appointment experts to examine and report), Wilson J was satisfied of the pre-condition that "the matters alleged in the supporting documentation would, if proved, justify the making of an extended supervision order". I now have the benefit of the reports of Mr Sheehan and Dr Singh. They strongly confirm that finding with which I agree. 14. In short, I am satisfied of the two matters in s 10B of the Act. 15. I note that Mr Sheehan raises some minor queries about the appropriateness or utility of a small number of the proposed conditions of an extended supervision order. Given the relatively short period of time in which an interim supervision order will be in force there is no purpose served in debating and determining the conditions at this point. 16. I make the following orders: 1. Pursuant to s 10B and 10C(1) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 ("the Act") the defendant is to be subject to an interim supervision order from 10 July 2017 for a period of 28 days. 2. Pursuant to s 11 of the Act, the defendant is directed to comply with the conditions set out in Schedule A to the Amended Summons filed on 5 May 2017 for the duration of the interim supervision order made in Order 1. ********** DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 04 July 2017