State of New South Wales v Hampton [2018] NSWSC 360

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: State of New South Wales v Hampton [2018] NSWSC 360 Hearing dates: 9 March 2018 Date of orders: 22 March 2018 Decision date: 22 March 2018 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Lonergan J Decision: (1) The summons is dismissed.

(2) The Plaintiff is to pay the Defendant's costs. Catchwords: HIGH RISK OFFENDER – extended supervision order – preliminary hearing – no pattern of serious violence offences – application refused Legislation Cited: Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) ss 3, 5B, 5D, 5I, 7, 9, 10A, 10C Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) s 9 Cases Cited: State of New South Wales v Anderson [2015] NSWSC 1515 Category: Principal judgment Parties: State of New South Wales (Plaintiff) Anthony Lee Hampton (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: D New (Plaintiff) A Hawkins (Defendant)

Solicitors: Crown Solicitors Office (Plaintiff) Legal Aid (Defendant) File Number(s): 2017/384625

Judgment 1. By summons filed on 20 December 2017, the State of New South Wales sought orders under Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) ("the Act") against the Defendant, Anthony Lee Hampton. The Act in its amended form applies, having commenced on 6 December 2017. By virtue of cl 17 of the amending act, it applies to offences committed before the amendments commenced and/or who are serving sentences that began before the amendments commenced. 2. The summons seeks an order that the Defendant be subject to an Interim Supervision Order ("ISO"), under ss 10A and 10C(1) of the Act, that he undertake examination by two qualified psychiatrists or psychologists, or one of each (s 7(4)), and that he be subject to an Extended Supervision Order ("ESO") under s 5B of the Act for a period of three years. 3. The Defendant has been on parole since 30 May 2017. His current sentence expires on 30 March 2018. This means that the parole supervision will expire before the proceedings are determined (s 10A(a)). 4. The Defendant opposes the orders sought. He admits that he is a supervised offender within the meaning of s 5I(1)-(2), but says that on the material relied upon by the State, the Court could not be satisfied to a high degree of probability that he poses an unacceptable risk of committing another serious offence if not kept under supervision under the order. 5. He also submits that he does not meet the necessary criteria set out in ss 7(4) and 10A, because the matters alleged in the supporting documentation would not, if proved, justify the making of an ESO. 6. The Defendant also takes issue with the intrusive conditions proposed by the state and advocates for an ISO with the least intrusive conditions particularly given the Defendant is currently on parole and there was no evidence in the supporting material that there had been any issues with that supervision and indeed no evidence at all after August 2017.