State of New South Wales v Ambrym (Preliminary) [2020] NSWSC 298

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: State of New South Wales v Ambrym (Preliminary) [2020] NSWSC 298 Hearing dates: 26 March 2020 Decision date: 30 March 2020 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 – serious sex offender – application for interim supervision order – conditions – electronic monitoring – access to financial information – access to internet, electronic devices and communications – access to healthcare information – condition abrogating privilege against self-incrimination is permissible Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1990 (NSW), s 112 Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), ss 7(4), 10A, 11, 12 Cases Cited: New South Wales v Baldwin [2019] NSWSC 1882 Category: Principal judgment Parties: State of New South Wales (Plaintiff) Colin James Ambrym (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: Ms C Melis (Plaintiff) Mr E Anderson (Defendant)

Solicitors: Crown Solicitors Legal Aid NSW File Number(s): 2020/60731

Judgment 1. HIS HONOUR: The State of New South Wales filed a summons on 25 February 2020 whereby it sought an extended supervision order (ESO) in respect of Mr Colin Ambrym under the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) (the Act). 2. The State seeks orders pursuant to s 7(4) of the Act for two experts to examine Mr Ambrym and provide reports. It seeks an order pursuant to ss 10A and 11 for an interim supervision order (ISO) applying to Mr Ambrym. It also seeks an order restricting (but not necessarily preventing) access to the court's file. 3. Mr Ambrym does not oppose the making of these orders but has raised various issues as to the appropriateness of some of the conditions of the ISO. 4. Although there is that concession by Mr Ambrym, it is a matter for the court to be satisfied that all of the statutory preconditions have been met before orders are made. The very helpful submissions of counsel for the State set out the relevant legislative provisions, construed the way they have been by various authorities of the Court of Appeal and this Court. They also provide an analysis of the evidence that is before the court and submissions as to how that evidence satisfies all of the legislative requirements. Having looked at the evidence myself and considered the uncontested submissions of the State, I am satisfied that the orders sought by the State should be made.