The State of New South Wales v Lee [2017] NSWSC 1766

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: The State of New South Wales v Lee [2017] NSWSC 1766 Hearing dates: 12 December 2017 Date of orders: 15 December 2017 Decision date: 15 December 2017 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Schmidt J Decision: (1) Pursuant to s 7(4) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 ("the Act"): (a) two qualified psychiatrists be appointed to conduct separate psychiatric examinations of the defendant and to furnish reports to the Supreme Court on the results of those examinations by a date to be fixed by the Court; (b) the defendant to attend those examinations. (2) (a) under s 10A of the Act, the defendant be subject to an interim supervision order from 1 January 2018 ("the interim supervision order"); (b) under s 10C(1) of the Act, the interim supervision order be for a period of 28 days; and (c) under s 11 of Act directing that the defendant, for the period of the interim supervision order, comply with the conditions set out in the Conditions which appear below. (3) The plaintiff have leave to file, under a covering letter, any additional evidence updating the case notes from the Offender Integrated Management System used by Corrective Services IMSW ("OIMS notes") referred to in the affidavit of Jamie McLachlan affirmed 6 December 2017 filed in these proceedings. (4) Any reports prepared for the purposes of Order 1 are to be provided to Corrective Services New South Wales, any agency involved in the defendant's supervision, and the defendant's treating clinician(s) or health care practitioner(s). (5) Access to the Court's file in this proceeding is restricted. A non-party may only access the file with the leave of a judge of the Court and with prior notice to the parties, in order to allow them an opportunity to be heard in respect of such an application. Catchwords: HIGH RISK OFFENDER – serious sex offender – preliminary hearing – application for interim supervision order and for examination by court-appointment of psychiatrists – relationship between current conditions of parole and conditions to be imposed under the supervision order – specificity of conditions – alterations to standard form conditions – resolving disputes about the nature and wording of conditions Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Amendment Act 2017 (NSW) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) Cases Cited: Attorney General for New South Wales v Tillman [2007] NSWCA 119 Cornwall v Attorney General for New South Wales [2007] NSWCA 374 Fardon v Attorney-General (Qld) (2004) 223 CLR 575; [2004] HCA 46 Lee v R [2009] NSWCA 259 Lynn v State of New South Wales (2016) 91 NSWLR 636; [2016] NSWCA 57 Regina v Lee [1999] NSWSC 773 Regina v Christopher Roy Lee (District Court (NSW), Armitage DCJ, 7 August 2008, unrep) Regina v Christopher Roy Lee (Supreme Court (NSW), McInerney J, 16 February 1990, unrep) Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: The State of New South Wales (Plaintiff) Christopher Roy Lee (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: Mr J Edwards (Plaintiff) Mr A Cook (Defendant)