New South Wales v Brian Alan Bowdidge

The matter before the court involved the state of New South Wales seeking to make an extended supervision order against Brian Alan Bowdidge, a man diagnosed with chronic paedophilia. The state argued that despite Bowdidge's adherence to his previous supervision order and the absence of any new offences over the past five years, there remained an unacceptable risk of reoffending. The court was required to determine whether the risk was sufficiently unacceptable to justify extending the supervision order and, if so, what the appropriate length of the new order should be.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the risk of reoffending by Bowdidge was such that it warranted an extended supervision order, and if so, how long that order should be for. The court had to balance the state's responsibility to protect the public against Bowdidge's right to freedom and autonomy. The court also considered the positive aspects of Bowdidge's compliance with his previous order and the lack of any new offences, against the inherent risk posed by his chronic paedophilic tendencies.

The court concluded that while Bowdidge had complied with his previous order and had not reoffended, the risk of reoffending remained unacceptable. The court accepted that there were positive aspects to Bowdidge's compliance with his previous order and the absence of any new offences. However, the court determined that the risk was such that an extended supervision order was necessary to protect the public. The court also found that the appropriate length of the new order should be three years, a reduction from the five years sought by the state. The court found no question of principle in the reduction of the order's length.

The court ordered that an extended supervision order be made against Bowdidge for a period of three years. The order required Bowdidge to comply with a range of conditions, including regular reporting to a supervisor, attending therapy sessions, and refraining from engaging in certain activities. The court's decision recognised the need to balance the protection of the public against the rights of the individual, and the importance of taking a positive approach to compliance with previous orders.