State of New South Wales v Golding (Final) [2018] NSWSC 1437

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: State of New South Wales v Golding (Final) [2018] NSWSC 1437 Hearing dates: 20 September 2018 Decision date: 26 September 2018 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: R A Hulme J Decision: Extended supervision order for 5 years with conditions Catchwords: HIGH RISK OFFENDER – serious sex offender — extended supervision order – whether Court satisfied to high degree of probability defendant poses unacceptable risk of committing another serious offence – defendant charged with numerous public masturbation offences – convicted of one serious sex offence – history of breaching parole and reporting obligations – risk assessment high or very high – diagnosed with psychopathy. Legislation Cited: Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) Cases Cited: State of New South Wales v Golding (Preliminary) [2018] NSWSC 1041 Category: Principal judgment Parties: State of New South Wales (Plaintiff) Laurence Golding (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: Mr I Fraser (Plaintiff) Ms A Cook (Defendant)

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor's Office Legal Aid NSW File Number(s): 2018/136841

Judgment 1. HIS HONOUR: The State of New South Wales has applied for an extended supervision order under the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) in respect of Mr Laurence Golding. 2. Mr Golding concedes that all of the preconditions for making an order are established by the material upon which the State relies. However, it remains a matter for the Court to be satisfied of that. Mr Golding takes issue with the duration of the order, suggesting it should be for 2 years whereas the State argues for the maximum period of 5 years. Mr Golding also takes issue with some of the proposed conditions. 3. I presided at the preliminary hearing of this matter which was contested. I made orders appointing two experts to conduct examinations of Mr Golding and provide reports to the Court. I also ordered that there be an interim supervision order to take effect when Mr Golding was released from his current period of custody. I gave judgment and reasons on 9 July 2018: State of New South Wales v Golding (Preliminary) [2018] NSWSC 1041 ("the preliminary judgment"). 4. Mr Golding has since been seen by Dr Adrian Keller, psychiatrist, and Ms Jenny Howell, psychologist, and their reports have been received by the Court. The State has also tendered some additional material, essentially to update the information that was before the Court on the last occasion. 5. In the preliminary judgment (at [4]-[19]) I set out the statutory provisions and some principles derived from case law concerning applications for extended supervision orders (as well as the orders that may be made at a preliminary hearing). There is no utility in my repeating that here. 6. The preliminary judgment includes a review of Mr Golding's general background at [20]-[26]); his criminal history ([27]-[56]); and a review of his absconding immediately after release on parole on 17 January 2018, his apprehension at the Crown Casino in Victoria about a fortnight later and his subsequent return to custody and revocation of his parole ([57]-[63]). Ultimately Mr Golding was released on parole again on 11 July 2018 and his sentence expired on 18 August 2018. The interim supervision order I made on 9 July 2018 has been renewed twice and is currently due to expire on 1 October 2018. 7. The preliminary judgment also reviews the following to which I have had regard but will not repeat: A report of Dr Calinda Payne of 16 July 2014 (preliminary judgment at [64]-[66]); A risk assessment report by Mr Samuel Ardasinski, senior psychologist with Corrective Services NSW dated 15 December 2017 ([67]-[74]; An update by Mr Ardasinski in an affidavit of 8 June 2018 ([75]-[76]); A risk management report by Ms Carly McMillan, a Community Corrections officer, dated 18 January 2018 ([77]-[80]). 1. I was satisfied at the preliminary hearing that the matters in the supporting documentation would, if proved, justify the making of an ESO. There is now no dispute about any of the matters that were in the supporting documentation tendered at the preliminary hearing and again in this final hearing and I am satisfied that they have in fact been proved. 2. The assessment I made at the preliminary hearing has only been strengthened by the additional material that is before the Court, primarily the reports of Dr Keller and Ms Howell.