State of New South Wales v Ali

[2010] NSWSC 1386

CITATION:	STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES v ALI [2010] NSWSC 1386 This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.
HEARING DATE(S):	11-12 November 2010
JUDGMENT DATE :	6 December 2010
JUDGMENT OF:	Hulme J at 1
DECISION:	I order pursuant to s 9 (1) of the Crimes (Serious Sex Offenders) Act 2006, the Defendant be subject to an extended supervision order for a period of 3 years from the date hereof and, pursuant to s 11 of that Act, direct that the Defendant comply with conditions - see paragraph 38 of Judgment.
PARTIES:	State of New South Wales Raizail Ali
FILE NUMBER(S):	SC 2010/252548
COUNSEL:	Plaintiff: DT Kell Defendant: M Johnston
SOLICITORS:	Plaintiff: IV Knight Crown Solicitor Defendant: Legal Aid Commission

- 17 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

RS HULME J
Monday 6 December 2010

2010/252548


THE STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES v RAIZAIL ALI


JUDGMENT

1 RS HULME J: By Summons filed on 29 July 2010 the Plaintiff sought orders pursuant to the Crimes (Serious Sex Offenders) Act (2006). On 9 September 2010 Johnson J made orders in accordance with the first two prayers for relief being orders that the Defendant be examined by two psychiatrists and be subject to an interim supervision order from 19 September 2010 for a period of 28 days.

2 On 14 October Hislop J extended that order until 13 November and on 12 November, I further extended the order until 10 December next.

3 The issue before me concerns the third prayer for relief whereby the Plaintiff seeks an extended supervision order for a period of 3 years. During the hearing, counsel for the Defendant indicated that the making of a supervision order was not opposed. However, objection was taken to two of the conditions the Crown sought, viz:-

5. The defendant must wear such electronic monitoring equipment as may from time to time be directed by the Departmental supervising officer and comply with all instructions given by a CCG [Community Compliance Group] officer in relation to the operation of such equipment, and must not tamper with or remove such equipment.
6. If directed by the Departmental supervising officer, the defendant must inform the Departmental supervising officer of his movements 48 hours in advance by providing a schedule in writing (or as otherwise directed by the Departmental supervising officer) and must obtain prior approval from the Departmental supervising officer for any proposed change.

4 In addition to the general objection to these conditions, it was said that 3 years was unnecessarily long and it was submitted that the 48 hours in condition 6 should be reduced to 24 hours.

5 Pursuant to s 6 of the Act, there are condition precedents to the making of an application, viz. that the person against whom such orders are sought is a serious sex offender serving the last 6 months of his custody or supervision at the time the application is made. In the case of the Defendant these conditions have been satisfied.

6 In reasons for the decision he made Johnson J summarised in some detail the Defendant’s history. Having regard to the limited issues before me it is unnecessary for me to repeat that process. I adopt his Honour’s summary and I can confine my reference to that history to a minimum.

7 On 20 October 2000 the Defendant committed three offences of sexual intercourse without consent in circumstances of aggravation. The circumstances of aggravation were the infliction of grievous bodily harm before each act of intercourse. The victim was an 18 years old female whom the Defendant met at a nightclub. The offences constituted a breach of a s 9 bond given on 9 June 2000.

8 On 30 September 2001 while on bail for the offences mentioned in the immediately preceding paragraph the Defendant committed another offence of sexual intercourse without consent and also one of attempted sexual assault. The victim was a 17 year old female staying at a youth hostel. The Defendant broke into her room and them imposed himself upon her.

9 On 26 March 2003 O’Reilly DCJ convicted and sentenced the Defendant for the sexual intercourse offences. The effective total sentence was imprisonment for 9 years including a non-parole period of 5½ years, both such periods commencing on 20 September 2001.

10 On 3 September 2008 the Defendant was released on parole. Conditions of his parole included:-

1. The offender must be of good behaviour and must not, while on release on parole, commit any offence.
4. The offender must, until the order ceases to have effect or for a period of 3 years from the date of release (whichever is the lesser), submit to the supervision and guidance of the Probation and Parole Officer and/or Compliance and Monitoring Officer (hereafter referred to as “the Officer”) assigned to the supervision of the offender for the time being and obey all reasonable directions of that Officer.
14. The offender is not to use prohibited drugs, obtain drugs unlawfully or abuse drugs lawfully obtained.
15. The offender must, if so directed by the Officer, seek assistance in controlling his or her abuse of drugs and/or alcohol and must authorise in writing that his or her medical and other professional and/or technical advisers or consultants make available to the Officer a report on his or her medical, and/or other conditions at all reasonable times.
16. The offender must undertake and maintain a program directed towards controlling his or her abuse of drugs and/or alcohol arranged by the Officer (Smart Maintenance).
17. The offender must not use, or be in possession of, a prohibited drug or substance.

11 Urine samples taken from the Defendant on 17 May, 21 July, and 20 December 2009 tested positive for methyl-amphetamine. Samples taken on 1 July, 21 July, 28 August and 9 September 2009 tested positive for cannabis. On 31 August 2009 the Defendant admitted to his parole officer that he had taken amphetamine. Initially the Defendant said this was about a week and a half earlier. Later the Defendant asserted it had been about 4 weeks earlier. The Defendant admitted to Dr Roberts that following his release on parole, which occurred in September 2008, he engaged in the use of ice and speed, a usage that escalated until it was daily. “Dirty” urines were insufficient to prevent him persisting.

12 From 5 September 2008 to 9 December 2009 the Probation and Parole Officer responsible for supervising the Defendant was Simione Kama. In consequence of reports that the Defendant had not been at his residence when officers of the Community Compliance Group had visited those premises and had been cruising the city at night, on 14 January 2009 Mr Kama gave the Defendant a direction that he be at home by 10pm each night. On 4 May the time of 10pm was changed to 9pm. I am satisfied that the Defendant breached the curfew on all or most of the following dates - 29 and 30 April, 1 and 6 May, 8 June, 20 July 2009, and 31 October 2009. The circumstances indicate that the strong probability is that the breaches were at least in the main, deliberate or the result of a “don’t care” attitude to the curfew.

13 The Defendant’s attendance at rehabilitation sessions was also poor. A report to the State Parole Authority of 21 January 2010 recorded that the Defendant had attended only two out of four SMART sessions and only fifteen out of twenty-seven sessions with the Forensic Psychology Service and such participation as had occurred was unsatisfactory.

14 The Defendant’s parole conditions did not impose on him conditions that in terms restricted his consumption of alcohol. Nevertheless it is clear that during the currency of his parole he had issues in this area:-

(i) On 13 and 20 October 2009, he was observed by police in the street to be affected by alcohol and driven home;
(ii) On 31 October he was observed at the Penrith Railway Station to be walking unsteadily and stumbling towards the platform edge. Asked how much he had had to drink, he replied, “A shit load. I’m pissed as”;
(iii) On 20 December 2009 he was given a written direction by the Community Compliance Group of the Department of Corrective Services to participate in various ways in programs or strategies directed to reducing his alcohol intake;
(iv) On 20 August 2010 he informed his MERIT counsellor that during the previous evening he had had 18 standard drinks; and
(v) On 12 September 2010 the Defendant, in an intoxicated state and in a public place, attracted the attention of police on 2 occasions.

15 Conditions of the interim supervision order made on 9 September 2010 included:-

4. The defendant must not, for the period of the supervision order, commit any offence punishable by a period of imprisonment.
5. The defendant must wear such electronic monitoring equipment as may from time to time be directed by the Departmental supervising officer and comply with all instructions given by a CCG officer in relation to the operation of such equipment, and must not tamper with or remove such equipment.
6. If directed by the Departmental supervising officer, the defendant must inform the Departmental supervising officer of his movements 48 hours in advance by providing a schedule in writing (or as otherwise directed by the Departmental supervising officer) and must obtain prior approval from the Departmental supervising officer for any proposed change.
14. (a) The defendant must not possess or consume any alcohol (including any alcohol-based products such as methylated spirits).
(b) The defendant must not possess or consume any illicit drugs.
15. The defendant must not go to any licensed premises, excluding restaurants and cafes, but including hotels, bars, licensed clubs and racecourses, without the prior approval of the Departmental supervising officer.

16 Despite these conditions a urine sample taken from the Defendant on 5 October tested positive for methylamphetamine, the taking of which the Defendant subsequently admitted had occurred on 4 October and a urine sample taken on 19 October tested positive for cannabis. Later the Defendant admitted he had taken cannabis on the second last time he was in custody, i.e. 13 to 15 October.

17 On 17 October the Defendant was observed by police to be in the Red Cow Hotel at Penrith. When questioned he said that he had drunk about half a dozen schooners. His breath smelt of alcohol, his speech was slurred and he appeared unsteady on his feet. In remarks to passers-by he appeared belligerent.

18 Included in the evidence was a Risk Assessment Report by Patrick Sheehan, a Senior Specialist Psychologist with Corrective Services NSW together with an affidavit by Mr Sheehan. Mr Sheehan’s view was that the Defendant’s risk of sexually re-offending was in the high range relative to other convicted adult male sex offenders. He said also:-

In Mr Ali’s case, the abuse of illicit drugs or alcohol are acute dynamic risk factors that serve to significantly escalate his risk of sexually re-offending. I regard complete abstinence from alcohol and illicit drugs as the only viable option for the future in terms of successful management of risk in Mr Ali’s case.

19 Pursuant to one of the orders made by Johnson J on 9 September, the Defendant was examined by two psychiatrists. Based on the Defendant’s statements to him, Dr Roberts diagnosed the Defendant as suffering from Alcohol Dependence, and Speed and Cannabis Abuse in Early Full Remission (my emphasis). Nevertheless Dr Roberts assessed the Defendant as a “high risk of engaging in a further sex offence, in particular in the context of intoxication”. Matters to which I have referred make it clear that the reference to “in early full remission” was inaccurate and in light of further material brought to his attention when or before he was in the witness box, Dr Roberts assessed the Defendant as at a very high risk of abusing illicit drugs and alcohol and agreed that these substances were acute dynamic risk factors for the Defendant. Dr Roberts also agreed with Mr Sheehan’s view as expressed in the paragraph I have just quoted.

20 The view of the second psychiatrist, Dr Samuels, was that the Defendant was at moderate risk of future sexual offending but that “there would be times when his risk of sexual offending does become high and that would be in the context of substance misuse, rejection of supervision, victim access, rejection, humiliation and a failure of his support system”.

21 All 3 experts took the view that supervision of the Defendant was important. Mr Sheehan observed that “Despite lengthy and intensive psychological treatment, (Mr Ali) has demonstrated the capacity to return to a high risk lifestyle without self-correction or positive response to intervention”.

22 Dr Roberts said, “I do feel that Mr Ali’s personality disorder makes it difficult for him to self regulate and any external factors that provide structure and monitoring are likely to limit his opportunities to be alone with potential victims and to engage in substance misuse”.

23 Dr Samuels described the conditions outlined at paragraph 14 of the Summons filed on 29 July as “critical in assisting Mr Ali to manage his risk of recidivism and indeed crucial to his successful reintegration into normal community life”. Those conditions were to the effect that the Defendant not possess or consume alcohol or illicit drugs, not abuse prescription medication and submit to testing and participation in drug and alcohol courses.

24 In what I have said above concerning the Defendant’s actions, I have concentrated on matters easily summarised, e.g. the results of urine tests and attendance figures. I should acknowledge however that in his Risk Assessment Report of 19 May 2010, a psychologist Mr Sheehan said that he did not see attendance as the main issue and that the quality of the Defendant’s participation was more important.

25 Other evidence with which I was provided included hundreds of pages of material dealing with other aspects of the Defendant’s conduct. Some of that was favourable to the Defendant although this tended to relate to times when he was in custody or when actually participating in some rehabilitation courses or theoretical discussions as to the interests of others and how he should conduct himself. The vast bulk of this other material, including that relating to the Defendant’s reactions and responses to efforts by officers of the Parole Service and the like to induce compliance with conditions and the law, was fairly reflected in the matters of drug and alcohol usage, adherence to curfew, not entering hotel premises and course attendance to which I have referred.

26 Even without the evidence of Mr Sheehan and the psychiatrists, the conclusion I would draw from the evidence is that the Defendant is unable or unwilling to control himself in the face of immediate desires, and this even though the undesirable or undesired consequences of his actions, e.g. revocation of parole and the long term imposition of conditions he dislikes, must have been obvious to him. When to these matters one adds the opinions of the persons mentioned, the Plaintiff has a strong case for the conditions presently in contest being imposed in the event any extended supervision order is made.

27 As I have indicated, such an order was not opposed. However it is proper to recognise that, s 17 of the Act provides that such an order can be made only if I am satisfied “to a high degree of probability that the [Defendant] is likely to commit a further serious sex offence if he … is not kept under supervision” and that in determining whether or not to make such an order I must have regard, inter alia, to the matters referred to in s 17(4). In light of the Defendant’s history summarised in the reasons of Johnson J, and the opinions of Mr Sheehan and the two psychiatrists, I am so satisfied.

28 Explored in the evidence and the hearing were options additional to those sought by the Plaintiff – e.g. regular urinalysis for the detection of drugs and the taking of medication to discourage alcohol consumption. The particular medication suggested was Antabuse which, if alcohol is then ingested, renders the taker so ill that he or she will probably feel obliged to resort to a hospital emergency department. There was evidence that the taking of this each day could be supervised by a local chemist.

29 It is clear also that the electronic monitoring sought by the Plaintiff also has disadvantages. It involves the Defendant virtually carrying a unit a number of times the size of a mobile phone, thus preventing the playing of team sport although permitting exercise at a gym. If the unit is taken into a building, it is liable to lose contact with the base station and sound an alarm so as to inform the Defendant of the need to go, almost immediately, outside where GPS reception is available. This in fact happened on a few occasions during the hearing before me. Dr Roberts also expressed the view that the electronic monitoring was humiliating, e.g. in circumstances where the Defendant was required to leave a classroom because its alarm went off, and it was important that the conditions sought by the Plaintiff should not be imposed in some punitive way. The timetable should be largely set by the Defendant.

30 On the other hand Dr Roberts drew attention to some advantages in the conditions sought by the Crown. The fact of a timetable and the monitoring were calculated to limit the Defendant’s tendency towards impulsivity and return him to a normal life involving relative predictability. Insofar as the need for approval of any timetable might result in the Defendant not having permission to enter licensed premises, it was calculated to reduce temptation, something Dr Roberts thought desirable.

31 Some remarks of Dr Samuels and Mr Sheehan bear repetition. At page 33 of his report Dr Samuels remarked:-

I do feel that Mr Ali’s personality disorder makes it difficult for him to self regulate and any external factors that provide structure and monitoring are likely to limit his opportunities to be alone with potential victims and to engage in substance misuse. Given the sense that he is being closely monitored and watched and that all is (sic) movements are known, I would see electronic monitoring as being a technique that could limit his overall risk of both sexual and general criminal offending.
There are some problems however with electronic monitoring and in particular need to provide a schedule in advance. It has already become clear that Mr Ali has some difficulties with planning and organisation and he may struggle to plan his day and then stick to the schedule that he has proffered, bringing him into conflict with the CCG group. It obviously is stigmatising for him to have to wear the monitoring apparatus and to provide explanations to family, friends and peers as to why he has this apparatus with him. I certainly could see some benefit in electronic monitoring being continued in the short term but if there is evidence that Mr Ali is responding to supervision and things are going well, the CCG group could then be in a position to review the role of electronic monitoring and ask for an amendment of this condition.

32 Mr Sheehan observed:-

… As the preceding analysis proposes, Mr Ali’s sexual offending behaviour has been embedded in a general pattern of anti-sociality. The behaviours associated with sexual offending would likely be observable to supervising staff. The advantage of this profile is that it may allow for responsive management of Mr Ali were he to be actively supervised. Observation of Mr Ali’s response to difficulties in the community will be a reliable measure of his success in applying treatment gains in the community context. As Mr Ali demonstrated improvements in his ability to manage himself responsibly, the level of restriction, supervision and support could be incrementally reduced, with the ultimate objective of Mr Ali managing himself autonomously by the conclusion of any supervision order.

33 While the use of Antabuse may well be sufficient to wean the Defendant off alcohol, urinalysis is a technique which is limited to enabling drug use to be detected in retrospect and has so far not come close to being sufficient to induce the Defendant to abide by the restrictions to which he has been subject over the last few years. Of course the electronic monitoring also cannot prevent such breaches. Of itself it cannot prevent him drinking alcohol at home or in many other places or from obtaining and using drugs. It is likely however to reduce the prospects of his presence at places where the risk of sexual re-offending is higher.

34 While not unconscious of the disadvantages and limitations of the conditions sought by the Plaintiff, on balance I think that they should be imposed. As Dr Samuels and Mr Sheehan envisaged, there is much to be said for the view that if the Defendant showed that he could and would accept an obligation to comply with rules or conditions imposed on him – in consequence of his own misconduct – or with normal community standards, these conditions should be relaxed or removed either by the Community Compliance Group or by the Court under s 13 of the Act.

35 There was also debate whether the term of the order should be 3 years or some lesser period and whether the period of notice of his proposed movements should be reduced. In support of the first of these matters, attention was directed to the period to date when the Defendant has been subject to supervision or restrictions. Had the Defendant complied with the restrictions and conditions imposed on him, these matters would argue for some reduction in the 3 years period. However, the conduct he had engaged in argues for a longer, rather than a shorter period of restriction. The period should remain at the 3 years sought.

36 I would add in this connection that, given the Defendant’s understandable dislike of the restriction imposed on him, he would be well advised to bear in mind that s 10 of the Act contemplates that at the end of the 3 year period, a further supervision order can be made. Whether such an order will be again made is not a matter for me. However, the Defendant is where he is because of his own actions. Unless he makes a significant change, there is obviously a distinct possibility that a further supervision order will be made in 3 years time.

37 I am also of the view that the 48 hours notice period sought should be part of the condition. The Defendant’s current supervision officer, Mr George, gave evidence. He said that since he has been in that role all of the activities proposed by the Defendant have been approved and that there is a system operating 24 hours a day whereby changes can be made to the an approved timetable. While Mr George made clear that some persons are subject to a lesser period of notice, nothing was put before me to indicate that the 48 hours sought has or is likely to impose difficulties on the Defendant. The longer period obviously gives the Department a greater opportunity to consider and inquire about any location or event proposed by the Defendant about which reservations may arise and in all of the circumstances I am satisfied that 48 hours should be the notice period.

38 Accordingly I order that, pursuant to s 9(1)(a) of the Crimes (Serious Sex Offenders) Act 2006, the Defendant be subject to an extended supervision order for a period of 3 years from the date hereof and, pursuant to s 11 of that Act, direct that the Defendant comply with the following conditions:-

Oversight

For the purpose of these conditions, the Departmental supervising officer is the person authorised from time to time by the Commissioner of Corrective Services to manage and supervise the defendant pursuant to the extended supervision order.

The Department is the Department of Justice and Attorney General ("the Department"). Corrective Services NSW is a division of the Department. The Community Compliance Group (the CCG") and Probation and Parole are each part of Corrective Services NSW.

Reporting and Monitoring Obligations
1. For the duration of the supervision order, the defendant must accept the supervision of the CCMS for so long as the CCMS is involved in the supervision of the defendant and, for any period that the supervision of the defendant is transferred from the CCMS to Probation and Parole, the defendant must accept the supervision of Probation and Parole.

2. The defendant must report personally once a week to the Departmental supervising officer or otherwise as directed by that officer.

3. The defendant must comply with any reasonable direction given by the Departmental supervising officer or any other Departmental officer who may from time to time be allocated to the defendant’s case.

4. The defendant must not, for the period of the supervision order, commit any offence punishable by a period of imprisonment.

5. The defendant must wear such electronic monitoring equipment as may from time to time be directed by the Departmental supervising officer and comply with all instructions given by a CCMS officer in relation to the operation of such equipment, and must not tamper with or remove such equipment.

6. If directed by the Departmental supervising officer, the defendant must inform the Departmental supervising officer of his movements 48 hours in advance by providing a schedule in writing (or as otherwise directed by the Departmental supervising officer) and must obtain prior approval from the Departmental supervising officer for any proposed change.

Accommodation

7. For the duration of the order the defendant must reside at accommodation approved by the Departmental supervising officer.

8. The defendant must accept visits at his approved accommodation, including visits without prior notice, by the Departmental supervising officer or any other Departmental officer who may from time to time be allocated to the defendant’s case.

9. If directed by his Departmental supervising officer, the defendant must be at his approved address between 9pm and 6am (or such other hours as may be specified) unless his presence at another place during those hours has been approved by his Departmental supervising officer.

10. The defendant must not leave the State of New South Wales without the written permission of the Commissioner of Corrective Services (“the Commissioner”)

Restrictions on Employment and other Activities

Employment

11. The defendant must not undertake employment other than that which has been approved by the Departmental supervising officer.

Non-association generally

12. The defendant must not associate with any persons specified by the Departmental supervising officer.

13. Without limiting paragraph 12 above, the defendant must not, without the prior permission of the Departmental supervising officer, contact or communicate by any means with, or attempt to contact or communicate by any means with, the victims of the sexual offences for which the defendant was sentenced on 26 March 2003.

Alcohol and Illicit Drugs

14. (a) The defendant must not possess or consume any alcohol (including any alcohol-based products such as methylated spirits);

(b) The defendant must not possess or consume any illicit drugs;

(c) The defendant must not abuse prescription medication or other forms of medication; and

(d) The defendant must submit to drug and alcohol testing, and attend and participate in such programs and courses relating to drugs and alcohol (including residential programs), as directed by the Departmental supervising officer.

15. The defendant must not go to any licensed premises, excluding restaurants and cafes, but including hotels, bars, licensed clubs and racecourses, without the prior approval of the Departmental supervising officer.

Personal Details and Appearance

16. The defendant must not change his name from Riazal or Raizal Ali without the prior approval of the Departmental supervising officer.

17. The defendant must not, without the approval of the Departmental supervising officer, change his facial appearance (including facial hair) or the colour of his hair and must not alter the length of his hiar to the extent that he cannot be easily recognised.

18. If the defendant’s proposed change of appearance is approved, he must allow himself to be photographs by or on behalf of the Departmental supervising officer.

Further Matters

19. Should the defendant propose to enter into a relationship with a woman (“the other person”) other than his current partner, which the defendant anticipates or hopes will develop into an ongoing relationship involving sexual or intimate contact, he must notify the Departmental supervising officer at the earliest opportunity. The Departmental supervising officer may disclose the defendant’s offence history to such other person if the officer is satisfied that to do so is necessary or desirable in the interests of the safety of the other person or any children of or related to that person.

20. The defendant must comply with all requirements under the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 200 and the Child Protection (Offenders Prohibition Orders) Act 2004 applicable to him.

Treatment Obligations

21. If and as directed by the Departmental supervising officer, the defendant must undergo a comprehensive assessment (and further assessments from time to time) including medical examination, pathological investigations, psychometric testing and radiological imaging to be conducted and/or arranged by the Community Forensic Mental Health Service (CFMHS) or the Area Mental Health Service (AMHS), to determine what is required for treatment, including in respect of the defendant’s potential for alcohol and/or drug abuse and potential for sex offending.

22. The defendant must accept psychological and psychiatric treatment as may be provided by an AMHS (or CFMHS or Justice Health), including counselling and psychological therapy and must not unreasonably refuse his consent to the administering of such therapy.

23. The defendant must attend regular medical consultations, physical examinations pathology testing, and medical imaging as directed by the Area Health Service, CFMHS or Justice Health.

24. The defendant must attend consultations with the Area Health Service or CFMHS, at such frequencies, venues and times as directed by his treating clinicians.

25. If directed by his Departmental supervising officer, the defendant must accept such psychological intervention by psychologists employed by the Department as may be offered to him, including the maintenance program provided by the Forensic Psychology Services and must participate in all such rehabilitation treatment and programs as may be directed by the Departmental Supervising officer.

26. The defendant must consent to the disclosure of confidential medical information as between the general practitioner and any treating psychologist and/or psychiatrist and the Departmental supervising officer.

27. The defendant must forthwith disclose to the Departmental supervising officer the identity of any other medical or mental health practitioner that he consults.

Disclosure of Information

28. The defendant must waive his right to the confidentiality of all information disclosed by him during treatment to his treating doctors (including any specialist and any psychologist.

29. The defendant must consent to his Departmental supervising officer and other Departmental officers (including from the CCMS) accessing all relevant information regarding the defendant’s progress while subject to supervision, which may include confidential medical information disclosed in the course of his treatment (but which does not include information protected under section 194 of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999).

30. The defendant must agree to the sharing of all information between his Departmental supervising officer, other Departmental officers (including from the CCMS), officers from Justice Health/CFMHS, the defendant’s general practitioner and any treating psychologist or psychiatrist.

31. The defendant must agree that, if the Departmental supervising officer considers it appropriate to do so, the Departmental supervising officer may provide to any prospective or actual employer of the defendant information relating to the defendant’s criminal history and may notify such prospective or actual employer that the defendant is subject to a supervision order and of the terms of the order.

32. At the expiration of 6 months from 19 September 2010 (and at the end of each six monthly period thereafter, if the defendant is still then subject to electronic monitoring), the continued need for the defendant to wear the electronic monitoring equipment will be reviewed by the Departmental supervising officer and, for this purpose, the departmental supervising officer may consult with (either jointly or separately) any treating psychiatrist or psychologist and the defendant.

33. At the expiration of 12 months from 19 September 2010 or such shorter period as the Commissioner may advise (and at the end of each 12 month period thereafter), the conditions the subject of the defendant’s risk management plan, being the conditions contained within the schedule to the orders made by the Court, will be reviewed by the Commissioner with a view to possible adjustment of such plan and/or consideration by the State of an application to the court to vary the conditions if considered appropriate. For the purpose of the review, the Commissioner may consult with (either jointly or separately) any treating psychiatrist or psychologist and the defendant. For the purpose of this condition, the Commissioner may act through an authorised officer.

**********

06/12/2010	-	Paragraphs 38 (32) and (33) omitted - Paragraph(s) 38
07/12/2010	-	Additional informatino - Paragraph(s) 38