NSW Caselaw
Supreme Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: State of NSW v Slater [2017] NSWSC 1574 Hearing dates: 10 November 2017 Date of orders: 10 November 2017 Decision date: 17 November 2017 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: WILSON J Decision: 1. Pursuant to section 7(4)(a) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) ("the Act"), the Court appoints Drs Richard Furst and Jonathon Adams, two qualified psychiatrists, to conduct separate psychiatric or psychological examinations. 2. The reports in Order 1 to be furnished to the Supreme Court by 15.2.18. 3. Pursuant to section 7(4)(b) of the Act, the defendant is directed to attend the examinations referred to in Order 1. 4. Pursuant to sections 10A and 10C(1) of the Act, the defendant is subject to an interim supervision order ("ISO") commencing on 13 December 2017 for a period of 28 days. 5. Pursuant to section 11 of the Act, the defendant is to comply with the conditions set out in the Schedule of the Amended Summons filed on 10 November 2017 for the duration of the ISO, noting the amendment to condition 29 to add the word "knowingly" after the word "defendant". 6. The matter is listed for further hearing on 8 January 2018 to determine the Plaintiff's application to renew the interim supervision order. 7. The matter is listed for final hearing on a date to be fixed, with an estimate of 1 day. 8. The parties have liberty to apply to relist the matter on one working days' notice. 9. Access to the Court's file by a non-party in respect of any document shall not be granted without the prior notification to the parties of the non-party's application for access and without leave of a Justice of the Court. Catchwords: CIVIL LAW – high risk sex offender – preliminary hearing Legislation Cited: Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Cases Cited: Lynn v State of New South Wales [2016] NSWCA 57 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: State of NSW – Plaintiff Luke Daniel Slater – Defendant Representation: Counsel: Mr P. Coady – Plaintiff Mr D. O'Neil and Mr E. O'Neill – 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