State of New South Wales v Strudwick [2018] NSWSC 1798

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: State of New South Wales v Strudwick [2018] NSWSC 1798 Hearing dates: 15 November 2018 Decision date: 23 November 2018 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Button J Decision: (1) Pursuant to ss 5B and s 9(1)(a) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), an extended supervision order is imposed upon the defendant for a period of two years, commencing on 27 November 2018. (2) Pursuant to s 11 of the Act, the defendant must comply with the conditions set out in Schedule A to the Summons, annexed to this judgment, for the period of the extended supervision order. Catchwords: HIGH RISK OFFENDER – serious sex offender – application for extended supervision order pursuant to the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) – dispute limited only to conditions – satisfaction that order should be made – discussion of appropriateness of various conditions – extended supervision order imposed Legislation Cited: Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), ss 5B, 9 Category: Principal judgment Parties: State of New South Wales (Plaintiff) Michael Clint Strudwick (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: D New (Plaintiff) S Hall (Defendant)

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor's Office (Plaintiff) File Number(s): 2018/55293 Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

Undisputed facts 1. Mr Michael Clint Strudwick (the defendant) was born in June 1973 in Dubbo, and is accordingly 45 years of age. A Wiradjuri man, he grew up in straitened circumstances, found school difficult, and his conduct became a problem. The most significant negative aspects of his life that have developed over the years are the chronic abuse of prohibited drugs and alcohol, including excessive abuse of cannabis whilst a teenager; a long-standing diagnosis of schizophrenia; and a repeated tendency to commit sexual offences. The net result of all of that is that he has spent many years of his life incarcerated, and is sufficiently institutionalised to have, at one stage, described himself as happier in gaol than in the community. 2. As for the first of those three factors, drugs and alcohol, according to a recent psychiatric report, he began to drink alcohol at the age of 11, and drank heavily in his 20s and 30s. His position is that he currently drinks only a few beers every month or so. He first smoked cannabis at the age of 13, and at one stage, was using it daily. His position as at May 2018, when he spoke to the psychiatrist, was that he had not smoked it for approximately four months. The defendant also spoke of regularly using methylamphetamine in the form of ice in his 30s, including intravenously. As at April 2018, he claimed that he had used it about two months before. 3. As for the second of those factors, schizophrenia, he has experienced auditory hallucinations for many years, although long acting anti-psychotic medication has been of assistance; indeed, he recently spoke of having heard voices since he was eight years old. The hallucinations are sufficiently developed and persistent for two separate personalities, with two separate names, to have been identified by the applicant. It is noteworthy that one of those personalities has been described by the defendant as "a thief", and the other as a "dead set sexual predator". 4. As for the third of those factors, the criminal record of the defendant began over 30 years ago in the Children's Court. It features a number of driving and property offences, to which I ascribe minimal weight. As for the convictions upon which emphasis was placed by the State of New South Wales (the plaintiff), they commence with an entry for indecent assault and wilful and obscene exposure (exposure) in January 1988. 5. In a nutshell, the defendant, then aged 14 years, exposed his erect penis to a woman in a telephone booth. She returned to her car, whereupon he approached the driver's door, spoke to her offensively, and grabbed her by the breast. In the Children's Court, the defendant was placed on two, twelve month good behaviour bonds. 6. Whilst on bail for those offences, he exposed himself to a mother of two young children in a park. He was convicted of exposure, and placed on a concurrent 12 month good behaviour bond. 7. In September 2003, the defendant committed an aggravated indecent assault against a 13 year old girl who was the daughter of a woman with whom he had been in a longstanding de facto relationship. In a nutshell, whilst the two of them were travelling in a motor car, the defendant placed his arm around her shoulder and touched her breast. He also tried to place his hand between her legs, but she moved it away. 8. Later, in 2005, he committed an act of indecency towards the same girl, who by that stage was 15 years of age. The defendant and the mother of the victim were in the kitchen of their home, and were drunk. The victim was sitting at the dining table. The defendant removed his penis from his trousers and showed it to the victim. She ran from the home and immediately complained to a neighbour. 9. In subsequent proceedings on sentence, the defendant accepted that the two matters described above were not isolated incidents. He also admitted that the result of the course of conduct was that the victim was made to feel "scared and unsafe". 10. In April 2006, the defendant committed an act of indecency against a further young girl in her early teens. Again, the defendant was intoxicated. He exposed his penis to the victim, who was the daughter of a friend of his partner. 11. In September 2006, in the Local Court at Cobar, the defendant was sentenced for the offences I have discussed to a 3 year good behaviour bond; a suspended sentence of imprisonment for 12 months; and a head sentence of imprisonment for 1 year with a non-parole period of approximately 4 months. 12. In June 2007, the defendant pleaded guilty to two charges of sexual intercourse with two separate victims, each of whom was a young girl who was aged 10 years at the time of the offences. Those offences had occurred on 8 June 2007. 13. In a nutshell, the two victims were known to the defendant through extended family. The defendant visited the home of one of the victims, and the two children left and went to his caravan. On his return to that location, he provided the two 10 year olds with alcohol, cigarettes, and cannabis. He also provided a water pipe commonly known as a bong to the two of them. Each of the 10 year old girls became very intoxicated, and one of them passed out. Thereafter, the defendant engaged in penile/vaginal sexual intercourse with the two of them. One of them, as I said, was unconscious during that ordeal. 14. The next day, one of the victims was bleeding vaginally, and a complaint was promptly made. A medical examination showed that one of the children had injuries to the wall of her vagina. 15. In August 2008, in the District Court at Dubbo, Judge Puckeridge sentenced the defendant to a head sentence of 8 years and 3 months with a non-parole period of 5 years, each to commence on 8 June 2008. His Honour emphasised the serious nature of the charges; the vulnerable position of the victims; the supply of alcohol and marijuana to them; the prior criminal history of the defendant with regard to sexual offending; the high likelihood that the defendant would re-offend; his schizophrenia; his drug and alcohol abuse; the finding that the offences fell below the mid-range of objective seriousness; and the defendant's early plea of guilty. 16. The defendant was released to parole on 7 June 2013. Throughout the latter part of that year and 2014, he attended weekly psychological counselling, and he was able to survive in the community for a time. 17. As at 25 and 26 February 2016, the defendant was still on parole. On those days, he exposed himself to a woman who was walking past his apartment in Surry Hills. On the second day, she reported his conduct to the police. The defendant was charged on 1 March 2016. 18. In the meantime, on 29 February 2016, the defendant exposed himself to a woman, and masturbated in front of her. He later informed a psychologist that he had been abusing a prescription opioid at the time. 19. On 12 May 2016, in the Local Court at Central, the defendant was sentenced for those offences to a number of fixed terms of 4 months, each to be served concurrently. 20. In late January 2017, the defendant exposed his penis and masturbated in front of a number of passengers on a suburban train on the City Circle in Sydney. He later told a psychologist that he had ceased taking his prescribed medication a few weeks beforehand. 21. On 3 May 2017, he was sentenced in the Local Court at Central to a total term of imprisonment for 15 months, with a non-parole period of 8 months, each of which commenced on 27 January 2017. 22. The defendant was released to parole on 26 September 2017. Less than two months later, he admitted to his parole officer that he had used cannabis. Later, on 15 February 2018, he was drug tested and returned a positive result for methamphetamine. He failed another drug test, by way of similar result, on 26 April 2018. 23. The parole period with regard to the head sentence of 15 months came to an end on 26 April 2018. From that date on, the defendant was subject to an interim supervision order (ISO). 24. The very next day, a home visit was conducted in order to fit an electronic monitoring bracelet to the defendant. The tranquilizer Valium (which is well known to be subject to abuse) was located in the premises of the defendant. Because he did not have a prescription for that drug, the defendant had immediately breached his ISO. 25. Twelve hours later, he was found to be in possession of pornographic material. That constituted a further breach of his ISO. The result of those breaches was that the defendant received a sentence of imprisonment totalling 5 months that commenced on 27 April 2018, and expired on 26 October 2018. 26. Since his release on that date, the defendant has been subject to an ISO. Rather than returning to the modest room in a private hotel in which he had been living previously, the defendant is now residing at Community Offender Support Program Centre ("COSP"). 27. Finally, a risk assessment was conducted quite recently with regard to the defendant. Additionally, two psychiatrists examined him pursuant to interim orders made at the same time as the imposition of the original ISO. 28. Each of those experts drew attention to the chronic and substantial criminogenic factors that exist in this case. Each of them expressed significant pessimism about the defendant being able to avoid offending in a significant way in the future, unless his liberty is conditioned.