State of New South Wales v Rush (Preliminary) [2018] NSWSC 1949

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: State of New South Wales v Rush (Preliminary) [2018] NSWSC 1949 Hearing dates: 10 December 2018 Date of orders: 10 December 2018 Decision date: 13 December 2018 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Lonergan J Decision: See [39] Catchwords: HIGH RISK OFFENDER – serious sex offender – preliminary hearing - application for interim supervision order – application for extended supervision order Legislation Cited: Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) ss 4A, 5B, 5I, 6, 7, 9, 10A, 11 Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 61J Cases Cited: State of New South Wales v BG [2018] NSWSC 1694 State of New South Wales v Sotheren (Preliminary) [2018] NSWSC 754 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: State of New South Wales (Plaintiff) Shayne Charles Rush (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: P Aitken (Plaintiff) A Cook (Defendant)

Solicitors: Crown Solicitors Office (Plaintiff) Legal Aid (Defendant) File Number(s): 2018/295920

Judgment 1. By Summons filed on 27 September 2018, the plaintiff, the State of New South Wales, seeks certain orders under the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 ("the HRO Act") with respect to the defendant, Shayne Charles Rush. 2. The defendant is currently on parole. He attended court and actively participated in proceedings by providing his counsel with instructions during the hearing. 3. The application made by the plaintiff is for interim relief in accordance with orders 1 and 2 of its Summons. For the purposes of determining the application for interim relief, the court has to undertake a preliminary hearing in accordance with the HRO Act. 4. Mr Aitken of counsel appears for the plaintiff and Ms Cook of counsel appears for the defendant. An affidavit of Kate Horman sworn 27 September 2018 was read in support of the application. Exhibited to that affidavit were two volumes of documents regarding the defendant's offending that has led to this application, including a risk assessment report of Mr Ardasinski, psychologist and a risk management report of Ms Carden from DCS, the sentencing remarks of the various judges who have dealt with the previous offending, and parole reports. 5. Counsel for the plaintiff and the defendant have furnished helpful written submissions. Ms Cook did not resist the interim relief sought in the Summons if the court is independently satisfied to the requisite standard that such orders should be made. No submission was made by the defendant that the court should not be so satisfied. 6. The defendant did not oppose the making of the orders sought in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Summons, however submissions were made concerning a number of the conditions the plaintiff sought as conditions of the interim supervision order (ISO). It reflects well on counsel for the parties that the area for disagreement has been narrowed to one issue only. That was in respect of condition number 28 regarding non association with children. After some helpful debate and proposed modification, that condition also was able to be the subject of agreement. I will return to that condition later in this judgment. 7. I was greatly assisted by counsel's approach to the issues, however the court is still required to form its own view as to whether the orders ought to be made in accordance with the provision of the HRO Act. Given the lack of opposition to the orders sought, whilst I need to explain the reasons for the orders which will be made, the Court is not required to give detailed reasons in respect to its analysis of each statutory factor.