NSW Caselaw
Supreme Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: State of New South Wales v Russell (Preliminary) [2018] NSWSC 1396 Hearing dates: 6 September 2018 Decision date: 11 September 2018 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: McCallum J Decision: 1. Pursuant to s 15(4) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), two qualified psychiatrists or registered psychologists or one qualified psychiatrist and one registered psychologist, as agreed between the parties, are appointed to conduct separate psychiatric or psychological examinations of the defendant (as appropriate) and to furnish reports to the Court on the results of those examinations by 26 October 2018; defendant to attend those examinations. 2. Access to the Court's file in respect of any document is hereby restricted such that access shall not be granted to a non-party without the leave of a judge of the Court, and, if any application for access is made by a non-party in respect of any document, the parties are to be notified by the Registrar so as to allow them an opportunity to be heard in relation to the application for access. 3. Pursuant to s 18A of the Act, an order for the interim detention of the defendant until 31 October 2018. Catchwords: HIGH RISK OFFENDERS – preliminary hearing – where application made less than three months before defendant's release date – significance of delay –importance that the Court not suffer itself to become an instrument of injustice by condoning the administration of the Act in such a manner as to impose constructive detention – consideration of factors relevant to interim relief sought – where defendant plainly poses a significant risk to the safety of women if released – history of failure to comply with supervision – interim detention order warranted Legislation Cited: Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), ss 6, 7, 9, 13B, 15, 17, 18, 18A, 18C Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1986 (NSW), s 58 Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 61D(1) Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: State of New South Wales (Plaintiff) Brett Russell (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: D New (Plaintiff) D Roff (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