State of New South Wales v Grooms (Preliminary) [2018] NSWSC 1917

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: State of New South Wales v Grooms (Preliminary) [2018] NSWSC 1917 Hearing dates: 3 December 2018 Decision date: 12 December 2018 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: R A Hulme J Decision: Two experts appointed to provide reports and interim supervision order for 28 days made Catchwords: HIGH RISK OFFENDER – application for continuing detention or extended supervision order – preliminary hearing – interim supervision order conceded but interim detention order opposed – interim supervision and other preliminary orders made – no point of principle Legislation Cited: Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) Category: Principal judgment Parties: State of New South Wales (Plaintiff) David Grooms (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: Mr J Emmett (Plaintiff) Mr R Wilson (Defendant)

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor's Office Legal Aid NSW File Number(s): 2018/287511

Judgment 1. HIS HONOUR: The State of New South Wales has applied for a continuing detention order for 18 months and then an extended supervision order for 5 years in respect of David John Grooms under the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) ("the Act"). Alternatively, the State seeks just an extended supervision order. 2. The matter is at the preliminary hearing stage and the State seeks orders for the appointment of two experts to provide reports and for either an interim detention order ("IDO") or an interim supervision order ("ISO") until the matter is finally heard and determined. 3. Mr Grooms is 32 years old. He is currently serving an aggregate sentence of imprisonment for 4 years for causing grievous bodily harm to a police officer while the officer was executing his duty ("the index offence") and wounding another officer while he was executing his duty. Both offences occurred in the course of an incident on 4 January 2015. Mr Grooms has not been granted parole and his sentence will expire on 3 January 2019. 4. The State's primary submission in support of the making of a continuing detention order ("CDO"), alternatively an extended supervision order ("ESO") is that the Court would be satisfied to a high degree of probability that Mr Grooms poses an unacceptable risk of committing another serious offence if not kept in detention when regard is had to: (a) the seriousness of the index offence; (b) Mr Grooms' frequent resort to violence since 2004; (c) his persistent failure since 2008 to engage in appropriate therapeutic programs; (d) his persistent breaches of prison discipline since 2008; (e) his untreated proclivity to violence of both a physical and sexual nature; and (f) the other considerations mandated in s 17(4) of the Act. 1. The basis upon which the State seeks an IDO (alternatively an ISO) is that the matters alleged in the supporting documentation would, if proved, justify the making of an ESO or a CDO. 2. There is no dispute that all of the statutory preconditions for the making of either type of order are established. The only matter currently in dispute is whether the matters alleged in the supporting documentation would, if proved, justify the making of a CDO. It is accepted that an ISO could be made but an IDO is resisted. 3. A starting point is to acknowledge the objects of the Act: to ensure the safety and protection of the community and also to encourage high risk offenders to undertake rehabilitation: s 3 of the Act. 4. There are a number of other matters that must be taken into account but in the Court's consideration of applications for an ESO or for a CDO the "safety of the community must be the paramount consideration": s 9(2) and s 17(2). 5. If at the preliminary hearing the Court is satisfied that the matters alleged in the supporting documentation would, if proved, justify the making of a CDO or an ESO, the Court must make orders for the appointment of experts to examine the defendant and provide reports: s 7(4) and s 15(4). 6. At the preliminary hearing of an application for an ESO, the Court may make an ISO if the defendant's current custody or supervision will expire before the proceedings are determined and the matters alleged in the supporting documentation would, if proved, justify the making of an extended supervision order: s 10A. But in an application for a CDO, the Court may make an IDO if satisfied that the current custody (if any) will expire before the proceedings are determined and that the matters alleged in the supporting documentation would, if proved, justify the making of either an extended supervision order or a continuing detention order: s 18A.