Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: State of New South Wales v Neal (No 2) [2019] NSWSC 78 Hearing dates: Orders made in Chambers on the papers Date of orders: 30 January 2019 Decision date: 13 February 2019 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Lonergan J Decision: 1. Pursuant to s 10C(2) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) ("the Act"), that the interim supervision order made on 27 November 2018 (commencing on 7 December 2018, and renewed on 19 December 2018 for a further 28 days commencing on 4 January 2019) is renewed for a further 28 days, commencing on 1 February 2019. 2. Pursuant to s 11 of the Act, for the period of the interim supervision order as renewed, the defendant is to comply with the conditions in the schedule attached to the orders made on 27 November 2018. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – high risk offender – high risk sexual offender – application for extension of interim supervision order - child sex offences Legislation Cited: Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), s 10A Cases Cited: State of New South Wales v Neal [2018] NSWSC 1806 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: State of New South Wales (Plaintiff) Grant David Neal (Defendant) Representation: Solicitors: Crown Solicitors Office (Plaintiff) Legal Aid NSW (Defendant) File Number(s): 2018/278899 Publication restriction: Nil Judgment 1. On 30 January 2019 I dealt with this application in the Duty List. Consent orders had been provided to effect an extension of the interim supervision order that had been initially made on 27 November 2018, to be renewed for a further period of 28 days commencing 1 February 2019. 2. These are my reasons for making and entering those orders. 3. The defendant was first made subject to an interim supervision order by Davies J in November 2018. His Honour's reasons for making those orders are set out in detail in State of New South Wales v Neal [2018] NSWSC 1806. 4. His Honour's judgment, as well as analysing the statutory scheme, sets out the background of the defendant, his offending, and the risk assessments conducted in respect of that offending. 5. In short, the defendant is a 48 year old man with a number of convictions involving sexual attacks on young children. The first involved an indecent assault on a child under the age of 10 (the daughter of his then partner), followed by other sexual offending involving a child for which he was convicted in December 2006. 6. The index offence was committed on 4 December 2009 whilst on a good behaviour bond in respect of his previous sexual offending. It involved sexual intercourse with a person under the age of 10 years under his authority. He was sentenced to imprisonment for 10 years 8 months with a non-parole period of 8 years. This sentence was reduced on appeal to 9 years with a non-parole period of 6 years. 7. After being released on parole on 7 December 2015, the defendant was subsequently convicted for failing to comply with his Child Protection Register reporting obligations. He was seen in January 2017 loitering near a public toilet block adjacent to a children's playground. He was convicted for this and his parole for the index offence revoked. 8. I have reviewed the documentation filed in support of the application, which in my view would, if proved, justify the making of an extended supervision order. 9. Since the analysis of Davies J in November 2018 the expert reports that were the subject of orders at that time have arrived on the court file. They comprise a psychological report of Mr Sheehan dated 19 January 2019 and a psychiatric report of Dr Adam Martin dated 29 January 2019. 10. The report of Mr Sheehan assessed Mr Neal's risk of sexually re-offending as "in the high category relative to other men who have sexually offended." 11. Dr Martin reached a diagnosis of Paedophilic Disorder and concluded (at page 15) that given Mr Neal's past history of offending he has to be considered "at relatively high risk of future offending". 12. Obviously this matter and these reports will be considered in detail at the final hearing which is listed on 21 February 2019, however, based on the material filed in support of the application and relevantly set out in the judgment of Davies J, the history of offending and the opinions referred to above, a proper basis is made out for the continuation of the interim supervision order pending final hearing. This is because consistently with the requirements of s 10A of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) the offender'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. ********** DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 13 February 2019