State of NSW v Keir (Final) [2020] NSWSC 570

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: State of NSW v Keir (Final) [2020] NSWSC 570 Hearing dates: 7 May 2020 Decision date: 18 May 2020 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Button J Decision: (1) Pursuant to ss. 5B and 9(1)(a) of the Act, the defendant is subject to an extended supervision order for a period of two years.

(2) Pursuant to s. 11 of the Act, the defendant, for the period of that extended supervision order, must comply with the conditions set out in the Schedule to this judgment. Catchwords: HIGH RISK OFFENDER – final hearing – application for extended supervision order – defendant convicted of murder committed in 1988 – serious risk of future intimate partner violence – extended supervision order of two years not opposed by defendant – events since imposition of interim supervision order - whether electronic monitoring and schedule of movements should be imposed Legislation Cited: Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), ss 5B, 9, 11 Category: Principal judgment Parties: State of NSW (Plaintiff) Thomas Keir (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: C Palmer (Plaintiff) L Hutchinson (Defendant)

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor's Office (Plaintiff) Legal Aid NSW (Defendant) File Number(s): 2019/329564

Judgment

Introduction 1. On 18 February 2020, I imposed an interim supervision order (ISO) upon Mr Thomas Andrew Keir (the defendant), pursuant to the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) (the Act). That ISO has subsequently been extended by another judge of this Court, and by me. By operation of the Act, any ISO imposed upon the defendant must expire on 19 May 2020. 2. On the day of the hearing that preceded that order, 6 February 2020, I made an order limiting but not prohibiting access to the court file by third parties. That order remains extant, and need not be discussed further now. 3. A final hearing was conducted before me on 7 May 2020. On that occasion, the State of New South Wales (the plaintiff) confirmed that the substantive order sought was a two year extended supervision order (ESO). Counsel for the defendant explained that neither that order, nor the majority of its proposed conditions, would be opposed on behalf of her client. She explained that the real dispute between the parties pertained to some proposed conditions of the ESO that were more stringent than those contained in the ISO, to which the defendant had by then been subject for some time. That dispute in turn rested upon one's assessment of some events that had occurred since the defendant had been subject to the ISO. 4. The parties were agreed that all of the evidence placed before me at the preliminary hearing should be understood as being notionally re-tendered at the final hearing. Furthermore, neither party submitted that my preliminary judgment was infected with error. Nor was it submitted that the matters canvassed in that earlier judgment need be laboriously repeated now. It can be understood then that this second judgment of mine incorporates all that I had said in the preliminary judgment, including my more extensive analysis of the history and other facts of the matter. For the convenience of the reader, my preliminary judgment appears at the end of the digital version of this judgment by way of a hyperlink.