State of New South Wales v Ayoub (Final)

[2023] NSWSC 963

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

State of New South Wales v Ayoub (Final) [2023] NSWSC 963

Hearing dates:

28 July 2023

Date of orders:

18 August 2023

Decision date:

18 August 2023

Jurisdiction:

Common Law

Before:

Wilson J

Decision:

(1) Pursuant to s 13(1) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), the interim supervision order made by Wilson J on 28 July 2023 is revoked.

(2) Pursuant to ss 5B and 9(1)(a) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), the defendant be subject to an extended supervision order for a period of two years from today’s date.

(3) Pursuant to s 11 of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), the defendant, for the period of the extended supervision order, must comply with the conditions set out in the Schedule to this judgment.

(4) Access to the court file in respect of any document in this proceeding shall not be granted to a non-party without the leave of a judge of the Court. If any application for access is made by a non-party in respect of any document, the parties are to be notified by the Registrar so as to allow them an opportunity to be heard in relation to the application for access.

Catchwords:

HIGH RISK OFFENDERS – extended supervision order – unacceptable risk of committing a serious offence – serious sexual offending – application opposed – extended supervision order imposed

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)

Child Protection (Offenders Prohibition) Act 2004 (NSW)

Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

State of New South Wales v Ayoub (Preliminary) [2023] NSWSC 479

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

State of New South Wales (Plaintiff)
Jamil Ayoub (Defendant)

Representation:

Counsel:
P Aitken (Plaintiff)
D Bhutani (Defendant)

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor’s Office (Plaintiff)
Legal Aid (Defendant)

File Number(s):

2022/330902

Publication restriction:

Some portions of this judgment have been redacted in compliance with interim suppression orders.

JUDGMENT

1. HER HONOUR: By way of Amended Summons filed on 28 July 2023, the State of New South Wales (“the plaintiff”) seeks an order that Mr Jamil Ayoub (“the defendant”) be subjected to an Extended Supervision Order (“ESO”) under the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) (“CHRO Act”) for a period of two years.

2. The matter first came before McNaughton J on 5 May 2023, when her Honour made orders subjecting the defendant to the interim supervision of the State, and directing him to attend appointments with two relevant experts, whose task was to assess the defendant and report to the Court: State of New South Wales v Ayoub (Preliminary) [2023] NSWSC 479 (“Ayoub (Preliminary)”). The reports ordered by her Honour were provided to the Court, and the final hearing of the matter came before me on 28 July 2023. Judgment and orders were reserved until today.

3. McNaughton J set out a brief background to the proceedings and outlined the applicant’s relevant offending past at [4]– [19]. It is not intended to repeat that information here, although it remains relevant to the determination of the final prayers of the Amended Summons, and I have considered it.

The Relevant Law

4. The State’s application falls to be determined in accordance with the test established by s 5B of the CHRO Act. The law with respect to the application of the test is now well-settled and need not be repeated here. It may be found stated in numerous decisions, including Lynn v State of New South Wales [2016] NSWCA 57 and, although it considers parallel legislation, R v Naaman (No 2) [2018] NSWCA 328.

5. There was no issue in the proceedings before me, consistent with the position the defendant took before McNaughton J, that the statutory pre-conditions to the making of an ESO found at s 5B(a)–(c) of the CHRO Act are made out. The issue was whether the evidence was capable of establishing the test set by s 5B(d) and, if it was, whether the conditions sought by the State were necessary to meet the objectives of the Act.

The Evidence – s 9(3) Features

6. The State read and relied upon the affidavit of Jessica van Lieven affirmed on 3 November 2022 by which Ms van Lieven produced a volume of documentary evidence before the Court as Ex JVL-1; an affidavit (with annexures) of Penelope Smith affirmed on 22 March 2023; affidavits (and annexures) of Nicholas McArdle affirmed on 7 July 2023 and 25 July 2023; and an affidavit of John Banton sworn on 10 July 2023. Relevant to the issue of the appropriateness of a scheduling condition was the further affidavit of Mr Banton sworn on 2 August 2023, filed after the conclusion of the hearing with the leave of the Court.

7. The defendant read and relied upon the affidavits of Michelle Macdonald affirmed on 26 April 2023 and 21 July 2023, and the material annexed to those affidavits.

8. The Court also had the benefit of the reports ordered by McNaughton J, being a report of Dr Carollyne Youssef, Forensic Psychologist, dated 27 June 2023, and a report of Dr Calum Smith, Forensic Psychiatrist, dated 28 June 2023. Most of the evidence having been adduced prior to the preliminary hearing, it is to the expert reports I first turn.

Expert Reports

9. Pursuant to s 7(4) of the CHRO Act, Dr Youssef and Dr Smith each assessed the defendant and provided their respective reports and conclusions to the Court. Neither Dr Smith nor Dr Youssef were required to give oral evidence at the final hearing.

Report of Dr Youssef

10. Dr Youssef was provided with the voluminous relevant documentary material and saw the defendant over a four and a half hour assessment interview, conducted at her offices on 7 June 2023. She utilised risk assessment tools, being the Static 99R, STABLE-2007, the Risk of Sexual Violence Protocol – Version 2 (“RSVP-V2”), and the Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for Violence Risk – Sexual Offence Version (“SAPROF-SO”).

11. The defendant presented as oriented to time, place, and person, with no evidence of thought disorder, delusions, or hallucinations. He was a verbose speaker and a vague historian, and the doctor noted inconsistencies between the history the defendant gave, and the documentary record.

12. Dr Youssef took a personal history from the defendant, who told her he was the second of four children to his parents. The defendant’s father is Lebanese and has never learnt to speak English. In the family home, the defendant’s father can communicate only with his wife, the defendant’s mother, who, although of Tongan-Scottish heritage, is a fluent Arabic speaker. The defendant was born a twin, but his sister died soon after birth. He attributes his mother’s emotionally disconnected treatment of him to this feature of his early life, stating that neither of his parents had ever loved him.

13. The defendant’s parents were together until he was aged around 5, 6 or 7, when his mother left the family suddenly to live with another man. After her departure, the defendant’s father would leave the children locked daily in a small section of the family home whilst he went out, the defendant thought, to work. The children did not eat when locked up, having access to food only upon the return of their father. After some years, the defendant’s mother returned to the family home and his parents remained together thereafter. The defendant did not welcome the return of his mother as she was a violent disciplinarian. The defendant reported being harshly and unjustly punished by her, being beaten with a hardened hose pipe.

14. The family was materially deprived, and the defendant reported stealing as a child. He was expelled from school in Year 8 for theft, and later joined a Tongan gang. Although the defendant sought a feeling of belonging in joining the gang, that was denied him because he was “a half-caste”. In these years, the defendant lived at home or at the home of a girlfriend. He was in trouble with the law and was placed in juvenile detention on occasion.

15. The defendant suffered from constant headaches throughout his childhood but, when treatment was sought from the family doctor, the doctor sexually assaulted him. He said that he was further sexually assaulted by a staff member when, at about the age of 15, he was in a detention facility. These experiences made him “hate authority”.

16. After leaving the Tongan gang, the defendant joined the Comancheros Outlaw Motorcycle Gang. He said membership of this group gave him access to “binges” with drugs and prostitutes in luxury hotels. He engaged in criminal behaviour as a member of this gang.

17. Recently, the defendant has abandoned all contact with his family.

18. In the past, the defendant reported three serious relationships, the first commencing when he was about 12 years of age and lasting until he was 21 years old, although his partner was away in New Zealand for much of that period. The defendant has a daughter with his first partner, now aged about 23, with whom he speaks from time to time. The defendant’s second relationship lasted for about 5 years, and the couple lived together for 4 years. The relationship was described as a volatile one, with the defendant claiming to have been the victim of violence from his partner. The defendant reported a current relationship with a 36-year-old woman, Ms K, who has three children, daughters aged 7 and about 15, and a son of about 16. The defendant’s accounts of this relationship to supervisors have varied, and it is regarded as problematic that Ms K has children in the defendant’s offending age range. The defendant has reported both that the relationship is continuing, and that it is over; that Ms K is pregnant with his child, and that he is not the father; that he and Ms K intended to marry, and that they did not.

19. The defendant has some male friends through his church whom he sees regularly, and a case worker through the Community Restorative Centre.

20. The defendant gave an inconsistent history of his sexual background, with the documentary record noting his previous claims to promiscuity (“30 women in 30 days”), whilst telling Dr Youssef that he has only had three sexual partners. He said he is attracted to adult women and denied any sexual interest in children.

21. The defendant was educated to Year 10. He claimed to have worked in various jobs although was vague about their details. Since his release from custody [his sentence having now expired] the defendant has worked as a truck driver, which he enjoys.

22. The defendant’s health has been poor, and he reported multiple hospital admissions recently with ongoing investigations for a possible heart condition. He referred to varying mental health diagnoses in the past, although the record suggests that much of what ailed the defendant were drug induced psychoses. Possible diagnoses of Antisocial Personality Disorder, depression, and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”) are noted in the records. He denied having problems with emotional regulation, although that is contradicted by the documentary record in which outbursts of temper and anger are noted.

23. Of his current circumstances, the defendant has plans to undertake a TAFE course directed at obtaining employment as a Safety Officer with his present employer. He says that he intends to marry Ms K once he is permitted to have contact with her. He is disappointed at being subjected to supervision, complaining particularly about the schedules of activity he is obliged to complete and the requirement that he tell any psychiatrist or psychologist from whom he obtains treatment about his criminal offending past (“I’m not doing that”).

24. Dr Youssef summarised the defendant’s criminal history, and history of sexual offending (discussed in Ayoub (Preliminary)).

25. [REDACTED.]

26. Of the 2011 offending, the defendant claimed to have no real memory of what had occurred because of his state of intoxication at the time. He claimed not to have known the age of the 15-year-old complainant.

27. Dr Youssef asked the defendant about the impact of his crimes upon his victims. She noted:

“Mr Ayoub struggled to articulate this however maintained that he was “not thinking right” and that “it was my immaturity … I didn’t have a childhood … I hated authority”. He maintained that his childhood abuse was a primary contributor to his offending behaviour; “this is why I need help and I am seeking it now”.”

28. The defendant was convicted in 2014, 2019, and 2020 of offences connected with his failures to comply with his reporting obligations as a person subject to the Child Protection Register. Dr Youssef observed:

“When asked about his breaches, Mr Ayoub said that on all occasions, it was either an error by police who provided him with the wrong form “on the form they gave me it said 14 days to report, then they said seven days to report”, or it was them “lying about the breaches”.”

29. The index offending is an offence of sexual touching that was linked to a fourth failure to comply with reporting obligations. The defendant became involved with a church through which he had regular contact with children, apparently holding himself out to be, or being regarded by others, as a youth worker who taught boxing to children. This contact with children was not disclosed to Police as required by the terms of the defendant’s registration. One of the children he encountered through the church was the complainant.

30. The defendant cultivated a relationship with her, talking to her regularly and dropping her home from church activities. In May 2019, the defendant told the 16-year-old complainant that he had contacts in the modelling industry and offered to take photographs of her, for a $3,000 fee, to use to secure modelling work. When the child agreed, the defendant took her to a public toilet block and encouraged her to undress, insisting that “the modelling agency” would want to see everything. He assisted her to undress, touching her body in the process. She felt unable to escape as the defendant was blocking the only exit. The incident ended only when the complainant’s mother rang her telephone. The defendant told her not to tell anyone what had happened. She later became suspicious of what had occurred, blocked the defendant and a supposed modelling agency that had contacted her on social media, and later complained to police. When arrested, the defendant commented about young girls feeling attracted to “guys at church”.

31. The defendant told Dr Youssef that he had enjoyed the power he exercised over the girl, although he denied any sexual intent towards her. He blamed his use of drugs for the offending.

32. Dr Youssef set out the circumstances of the defendant’s last period of incarceration, during which he had been subject to limited association because of the nature of his offence. The defendant reported getting on well with inmates but found prison staff difficult to cope with. His last institutional offence was some 10 years ago.

33. He completed the High Intensity Sex Offender Programme (“HISOP”) in 2011 and again in 2013, although his participation was regarded as problematic and superficial, with the defendant displaying limited insight and a “compromised ability to work on psychological issues”. Despite that:

“Eventually, Mr Ayoub was able to identify several psychological factors that had contributed to his criminal lifestyle and his offending; “impulsivity, difficulty managing emotions, a tendency to be aggressive, liking a ‘fast lifestyle’, drugs and alcohol abuse, a tendency for mistrust of others (particularly those in authority) and feelings of vengeance and a lack of self-confidence” […]. Ms Woodrow noted that his offending behaviour seemed to have “occurred as a result of his more general life pattern characterised by substance misuse, hedonistic and thrill seeking behaviour (i.e., parties, sexually promiscuous behaviour), sexual preoccupation and feelings of sexual and general entitlement, poor self-control, unstable mental health (i.e., hearing voices, seeing shadows, fluctuating mood), criminal behaviour and associates, mistrust and disrespect for authority, rules and advice, and isolation from more stable individuals in his life … He appeared to hold sexually derogatory attitudes about women, beliefs that his sexual behaviour was linked to his masculinity and feeling good, and a belief that violence is an appropriate solution to problems” […]. Mr Ayoub was described as “taking limited responsibility for his sexual offence convictions” […]. Overall, his treatment gains were described as “small” with an insufficient understanding of why he committed his sexual offence or an ability to identify his risk factors.”

34. The defendant reported to Dr Youssef that he did not find the programme useful.

35. The superficial engagement with service providers was echoed by the defendant’s response to supervision in the community, which has often been deemed unsatisfactory. The defendant was recorded as aggressive and abusive to Community Corrections staff on occasion, reporting erratically, being unmotivated, and non-compliant with intervention. He was made the subject of breach reports on three occasions, most recently September 2022. He has also breached supervised bonds. The breaches of reporting obligations have already been noted.

36. With the background of the information summarised above, Dr Youssef considered the degree of risk that the defendant might pose to others, noting that it is not scientifically possible to predict whether an offender will reoffend, and actuarial tools are a limited means by which to assess risk. With those qualifications, she noted that the defendant presented with risk factors for persistent sexual offending, diverse in nature, and potentially involving physical coercion or psychological manipulation. The defendant has limited capacity to adjust or manage risk factors as he tends to deny or minimise his crimes, and to support attitudes that condone sexual violence. He lacks self-awareness, has problems managing stress, and requires therapy for childhood abuse. The defendant also has problems with substance abuse, gambling, and sexual preoccupation.

37. Some protective factors are present including employment, ambitions for further vocational training, and relatively stable accommodation. He also has access to the support of the Forensic Psychology Service (“FPS”), although his engagement with the Service seems to be both sporadic and characterised by reluctance to discuss his personal situation.

38. On the whole, the defendant had a high risk score that would place him in the category of “Well Above Average Risk” for sexual recidivism (Static-99R). Dr Youssef suggested that the defendant would benefit from external support. She said:

“It is increasingly recognised that interventions for at-risk offenders, should aim to strengthen and develop these protective and promotive factors alongside other measures to promote external and internal controls (Weaver, 2014). Should Mr Ayoub increase his protective factors […] then this may reduce his risk of reoffending. Mr Ayoub would benefit from ongoing external support, the goal would be to work towards improving and increasing Mr Ayoub’s self-management and independence, working towards a reduction in external support and management. Without this support and intervention, Mr Ayoub is at risk of returning to his previous lifestyle, thus increasing his risk factors.”

39. It was Dr Youssef’s opinion that the defendant would benefit from supervision under an ESO. She said:

“I believe Mr Ayoub’s risk can be adequately managed in the community under an ESO, which would allow him an opportunity to be supported whilst addressing his outstanding treatment needs. Mr Ayoub’s risk and integration is likely to be best managed within a supportive and multidisciplinary, staged approach aiming towards the reduction of restrictions and monitoring over a period of a couple of years. This assessment is based on Mr Ayoub’s static, dynamic, and protective factors. The following risk factors were identified as relevant to his risk: limited insight into his risk factors, poor general and sexual self-regulation, interpersonal deficits, poor distress and frustration tolerance resulting in the use of unhelpful coping, and a poor self-reflective capacity regarding internal processes. Mr Ayoub would benefit from intervention targeted at strengthening his protective factors […].

I note that Mr Ayoub is subject to the conditions of a CPPO. Whilst the conditions of a CPPO restrict Mr Ayoub’s access to children under 18 and there could be other conditions restricting his access to risk-related factors, there is no provision in place for Mr Ayoub to be supported and supervised like those conditions of an ESO. Furthermore, a CPPO cannot enforce treatment. Given Mr Ayoub has completed treatment twice before and reoffended, it is strongly recommended that he continue engaging in offence-specific intervention and that this approach be adapted to his responsivity, given the group programs appeared limited. The conditions of an ESO would allow Mr Ayoub to have ongoing support and supervision whilst he addresses his outstanding dynamic risk needs.”

40. She concluded that an ESO “for up to 2 years” was appropriate and that the conditions sought were generally appropriate.

Report of Dr Smith

41. Dr Smith is a Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist. He assessed the defendant during a one hour and 45-minute “Webex” appointment on 14 June 2023. In making his assessment and recommendations, Dr Smith relied on both his interview with and examination of the defendant, and the documentary material provided to him.

42. Dr Smith noted that, at the time of the psychiatric assessment, the defendant was a 45-year-old man of mixed background and with a characteristically indirect manner of speech. For the purpose of the assessment, the defendant attended his solicitor’s office in Sydney where the necessary technology was made available to him. He told Dr Smith that he was suffering from “some thyroid problems, bit of anxiety, depression, overwhelmed with this interim order, but trying to get there”.

43. The defendant told Dr Smith that he has been working full time as a truck driver since his release from custody, and that most days he has coffee with “the boys” with whom he attends church. He said that he is in a relationship with a woman who is 4 months pregnant with their child, although he told Dr Smith that she lives with her mother while he lives alone. His partner has 3 children, a son 16 years of age and two daughters aged 15 and 8. When asked whether his partner is aware of his criminal history, the defendant told Dr Smith, “I told her everything…she was so loving, it’s a new me, not the old man. Someone who needs help, it doesn’t matter unless they realise themselves, they have a problem”.

44. Dr Smith took a history from the defendant, focusing primarily on his adverse childhood experiences and the circumstances surrounding the three sexual offences for which he has been convicted. Dr Smith noted that the defendant’s personal history was uncontested and was contained largely within the documentary material provided to him to which he had regard in preparing his expert report.

45. The defendant told Dr Smith that he was sexually abused by his family doctor from the age of 4 up until the age of 16. Having been convicted of multiple criminal offences as a child, he was sent to a boy’s home – a juvenile justice centre – where he was sexually abused by a guard.

46. The defendant began consuming cannabis and alcohol from around the age of 12, and by age 16 or 17, he was using amphetamines every weekend. He regularly used cocaine in his early twenties but denied ever using heroin. The defendant told Dr Smith he had not used any drugs or alcohol since his release and was generally abstinent in custody. Dr Smith noted this was largely consistent with the documentary material, although his account of past offending was not.

47. The defendant first experienced psychosis in around 2001, shortly before or at the time he served his period in adult custody. He described hearing voices, losing weight and being paranoid when he entered gaol. He told Dr Smith that he had to sleep with the light on because he started seeing shadows. He was housed in Long Bay Hospital where he saw a psychiatrist for the first time.

48. The defendant was prescribed various psychotropic medications when presenting as psychotic during later periods of incarceration, although Dr Smith opined that this was almost certainly secondary to substance use. Dr Smith expressed concern at the defendant’s lack of insight into the role of medication in managing his mental state and behaviour and his concrete statement that he does not “believe in medication”.

49. In relation to the first sexual offence committed in 2002, the defendant told Dr Smith that he gave the victim Rohypnol in order to “massage her”. [REDACTED.] He said he didn’t think much of it at the time as he was coming off a bender. The defendant told Dr Smith that while he believed the victim consented to the massage, he now understood “It was the drugs talking, [REDACTED] it was the drugs”. The defendant told Dr Smith that it was not something he had ever done before or ever did again. He reported having little memory of interacting with or being interviewed by police due to heavy dug use at the time.

50. Having only been convicted of that first sexual offence some six years later in 2008, the defendant described “partying every weekend with the boys” and drug use between 2001 to 2007. After his release from custody, he began partying and using drugs again. The defendant told Dr Smith he has used drugs “most of the time – through my while life” though he no longer needs drugs or alcohol. When asked to identify the circumstances giving rise to his offending, the defendant commented “the alcohol and the drugs, the benders, when I started doing things, you don’t even realise that you do. Just the environment I was in at the time”.

51. In relation to the second sexual offence committed in 2011, the defendant described drinking through the night, and having little to no recollection of the evening due to the large quantity of alcohol consumed. Dr Smith noted the defendant’s explanation was difficult to follow as he denied the offence despite having pled guilty, and raised issues of DNA evidence which he did not believe were question. Dr Smith also expressed some scepticism of the defendant’s claims to have absolutely no recollection of the evening given that he was adamant on what he did not do.

52. In relation to the index offence in these proceedings, the defendant again described committing the offence when “coming off a bender”. He stated it was motivated by power rather than sexual desire and told Dr Smith that he abused the power imbalance between himself and his victim. He explained, “[I] took advantage of someone I couldn’t have, that person was vulnerable, and I took advantage, I picture myself as the doctor [who sexually assaulted him] yeh the way he did that to me, I did it to that girl”. Dr Smith noted that some aspects of the defendant’s explanation were not consistent with the events as described in the documentary material.

53. The defendant claims to have disowned his whole family, telling Dr Smith that “family is so negative.” Though the defendant presented this decision as a positive development – and this may be so if his family members are connected with OMCGs as suggested in some of the documentary material – Dr Smith observed that notes provided by his FPS councillor indicated otherwise. A note from 18 August 2022 detailed an argument the defendant had with his mother, who is the carer of his 4-year-old niece, when she rightly informed the Department of Communities and Justice (“DCJ”) of his criminal history. The defendant told the FPS councillor that his mother was “heartless”.

54. On presentation the defendant was generally settled with occasional expressions of frustration. There were no signs of mental disorder, although the defendant regularly suggested that he was “being judged” and was generally suspicious.

55. Dr Smith utilised the Historical Clinical Risk Management-20, Version 3 (“HCR-20 v3”) actuarial tool to assess the defendant, noting that many of the risk factors included in that instrument are present in the defendant’s case. He has a history of previous violence and violent attitudes; a history of previous anti-social behaviour and problems with treatment or supervision response; a history of relationship, employment, and substance use problems; and a history of trauma. Some other features were partially present, including predicted future problems, including with responses to supervision or treatment, and with stress management.

56. The RSVP-V2 was used to assess the risk of sexual violence. Dr Smith thought that the defendant had some risks of persistence in sexual offending given the span of time over which the defendant had committed sexual crimes, and a risk of the use of psychological coercion. He regarded the defendant as minimising or denying his offending to some extent; potentially exhibiting sexual deviance, although that feature was difficult to judge; possibly relapsing into drug use; experiencing problems with relationships with others; having some potential for poor engagement with treatment; and having problems with supervision.

57. Dr Smith concluded that:

“The overall historical background of Mr Ayoub’s presentation therefore contains many risk factors that would be of concern going forward. With respect to the sexual violence risk factors, these include, but are not limited to; multiple sexual offences (one of which is serious), poor engagement with talking therapies regarding this, longstanding substance misuse, a history of sexual abuse himself that is not seemingly processed, and a history of offences even though under specific supervision for these topics. This is not only general breaches, but there are also specific breaches such as use of alternative email addresses not announced to supervising services.”

58. Like Dr Youssef, Dr Smith assessed the defendant as presenting a “Well Above Average” risk of sexual violence, which “represents substantive risk”. He acknowledged, however, the improvements that the defendant has made over the past decade, noting that, although there continue to be negative aspects to the defendant’s circumstances, “their overall tenor improves”. He said:

“Overall, therefore, I note the presence of substantial historical risk, but that there is evidence that this risk is in the process of being ameliorated. Whilst not wishing to be negative, it is important to ensure that these changes are maintained before we can adjudge the risks to be substantially decreased. I therefore have the view that, based on the totality of the evidence, Mr Ayoub is a substantive risk of committing a further serious offence, specifically a sexual one. But I note the recent improvements and believe that if these are maintained then the risk profile should ameliorate substantially.”

59. Dr Smith diagnosed antisocial personality traits with a likely disorder, together with substance misuse currently in remission. These conditions are not “curable” but are “relapsing remitting conditions”. How these disorders vary will influence the level of risk posed by the defendant. Dr Smith thought it desirable to impose an ESO on the defendant:

“My view is that management under an ESO is appropriate. This is the issue of high levels of problematic past conduct and risk factors that Mr Ayoub exhibited and have given examples of above. I note that he was being managed in the community under child protection legislation, and it failed to prevent him offending. I have quoted statistics that show the rates of further offending here and internationally. I believe that management under an ESO would assist in reducing the likelihood of committing a serious offence.”

60. He regarded the time frame of 18 months to 2 years, and the conditions sought by the State – with one exception – as broadly appropriate. The exception was with respect to the schedule of movements, which Dr Smith did not regard as necessarily justified or, if so, only for a limited period.

Criminal History Generally

61. The defendant’s history of sexual offending is summarised in Ayoub (Preliminary) and touched upon above. Each of the offences was predatory and highly manipulative and was so regarded by the sentencing courts. With respect to the 2019 offences the sentencing magistrate referred to the status the defendant had given himself within the church community; he exploited that status to commit what was described by the court as an “extremely serious” example of sexual touching by a man who posed “a high risk of offending which poses a risk to community safety”. The 2008 offence involved the exploitation of an intoxicated child to secure sex and was assessed by the sentencing judge as serious offending committed without regard for the consequences. [REDACTED.]

62. Other than these offences, the defendant was frequently in trouble with the criminal law as a child and was dealt with for offences involving violence and dishonesty, notably an offence of robbery in company. As he told Dr Youssef and Dr Smith, he spent time in juvenile detention centres. As an adult he has been dealt with for property, drug, and driving offences.

Risk Assessment and Management

63. The extent of the risk posed by the defendant has been the subject of assessment over time by NSW Corrective Services utilising actuarial tools. Dr Richard Parker, psychologist, conducted such an assessment in November 2020, concluding that the defendant fell within the high-risk category for sexual recidivism. The defendant presented as holding negative views towards women whom he seemed to view as available for use for sexual purposes. The defendant’s substance misuse was regarded as heightening his antisocial views and, consequently, the risk the defendant posed to others.

64. A further assessment was conducted by psychologist Holly Cieplucha in June 2022. Ms Cieplucha considered the defendant to present an above average risk of sexual offending, having regard to features including the persistence of his sexual offending against women, his substance abuse problems, and his tendency to minimise the gravity of his crimes. She regarded continued support from the FPS and other agencies, and abstinence from drug and alcohol use, as critical to minimising risk.

65. Soon after the defendant was assessed by Ms Cieplucha, a Risk Management Report was prepared by Mick Glover, a Community Corrections Officer in the Metropolitan Extended Supervision Team, to consider how the defendant could best be managed in the community. Mr Glover formulated a set of recommendations based upon the defendant’s prior offending and the risk factors and scenarios identified by the risk assessment report writers; namely, chronicity of sexual violence; minimisation and denial of sexual violence; problems arising from child abuse, substance abuse and impulsivity; sexual self-regulation and problems with intimate and non-intimate relationships.

66. Mr Glover suggested that the defendant would be best managed by regular meetings with supervisors, and conditions placed against his accommodation, substance use, contact with children, movement and travel, association with antisocial individuals, and any employment or training he undertook. Supervision of his electronic communication was considered useful.

67. The defendant is a registered child sex offender, and subject to the restrictions imposed upon registered persons.

Compliance with Supervision

68. The defendant’s likely compliance with supervision was considered by Dr Parker as difficult to assess given his generally poor compliance with community-based supervision, including parole, and hostility to persons in authority.

69. Parole was revoked in November 2014 because of the defendant’s failure to accept supervision and direction. Most recently, the defendant was released to parole on 21 May 2022. His initial response was poor, with a September 2022 report noting his aggressive and abusive interactions with supervisors, and resistance to directions as to his conduct. His engagement with the FPS was poor to non-existent, although he renewed contact with the service in October 2022.

70. The defendant claims to be currently abstinent from drug use, and to use alcohol only socially. A September 2022 urinalysis result detected opiates, although there is a suggestion that the test may have picked up prescription drugs.

71. As the defendant’s criminal history establishes, he has frequently failed to comply with his obligations as a person subject to the supervision of the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 (NSW).

Evidence for the Defendant

72. The affidavit of Michelle Macdonald affirmed on 26 April 2023 annexed select entries from the Offender Integration Management System (“OIMS notes”) concerning the defendant’s behaviour, activities and interactions with Community Corrections Officers following his release from custody but before the imposition of the ISO.

73. OIMS notes from 22 December 2022 to 9 March 2023 record that the defendant was consistently polite, positive and forthcoming with information in his interactions with Community Corrections Officers. He engaged in seemingly meaningful conversations with officers, expressing a desire to be a good father and a role model for his daughter. On 29 December 2022, Mr Abbas, a Community Corrections Officer, noted that the defendant “appeared to be very insightful and was using phrases to insinuate that he was "very embarrassed with his actions”. The defendant successfully completed the ‘Self-Awareness’ unit administered by Community Corrections and commenced the ‘Pro Social Lifestyle’ unit.

74. On 11 January 2023 it was recorded that the defendant was engaging well with FPS and police, with a notation that “it appears he has changed his attitude significantly. On 8 February 2023, however, it is recorded that the defendant’s compliance and reliability declined somewhat. From 3 March 2023, OIMS notes document the defendant’s awareness of and opposition to the State’s application for an ESO. FPS psychologist Daniel Cheers noted that while he expressed some anger about the application, it was not dysregulated.

75. The affidavit of Michelle Macdonald affirmed on 21 July 2023 annexed a further selection of OIMS notes from 22 May 2023 (shortly after the ISO was imposed) to 7 July 2023. All schedules provided by the defendant and directions issued by the Metropolitan Extended Supervision Orders Team (“ESO Team”) to the defendant during that period were also annexed. The annexures record multiple occasions on which the defendant contacted the ESO Team requesting a change to his schedule which was declined primarily on the basis that it was not a pre-approved activity.

Submissions

76. The State seeks the imposition of an ESO of 2 years duration, with the conditions in the same terms as those imposed by the interim orders. The State points to the long years over which the defendant has offended, and the limited insight he has into the gravity of, and his full responsibility for, his crimes. His claim to newfound understanding – the claimed “epiphany” that Dr Smith referred to – is something the Court should view with great caution in the State’s submission, having regard to the defendant’s unreliability as an historian, and his deeply entrenched substance use disorder. The re-emergence of the latter would heighten the risk posed by the defendant and requires close management.

77. The defendant submits that the Court could not be satisfied to the standard established by s 5B(d) of the CHRO Act that he poses a relevant risk, and an order should not be made. He argues that, since his release to parole in May 2022 he has obtained employment and stable accommodation, remained abstinent from drug use, and has engaged with treatment providers. The supervision to which he is already subject through a current Community Corrections Order (“CCO”) (until 1 March 2024), a Child Protection Prohibition Order (“CPPO”), and as a person on the Child Protection Register is adequate to mitigate any remaining risk.

76. The defendant points to the terminology used by Dr Youssef and Dr Smith in their respective assessment of risk, noting that a risk assessed as “well above average” or “substantive” does not address the statutory criteria and cannot be relied upon to determine that the level of risk posed by the defendant meets it. In any event the risk was assessed against any sexual offending as distinct from the serious sexual offending the Act aims to protect the community from, and the actuarial assessments must be viewed with caution. Against those assessments the defendant points to his 15 or so months of stable living in the community, working on a full-time basis and attending upon the FPS as required, and other community-based services such as Alcoholics Anonymous. He is motivated to change and has changed.

77. The defendant contends that, insofar as any supervision is required, the Court can be satisfied that he receives it through the combined oversight of current orders, including the CCO in force until 1 March 2024, which provides the power to the defendant’s supervising officer to give him directions which he must obey or face sanction. Directions can be given with respect to a wide range of activities, including treatment, non-association, abstinence from drugs and alcohol, and accommodation.

78. In the alternative the defendant argues that the conditions of any order the Court makes should not include scheduling, this being an undue infringement on his liberty which is retrogressive to his rehabilitation. The defendant relied upon the Risk Management Report of Mr Glover which provides that the defendant was not subject to schedules during the period in which he successfully completed parole. The defendant argued that the RMR evidenced NSW Corrective Service’s position that scheduling was not necessary or appropriate. The defendant also relied upon OIMS notes detailing the defendant’s continued compliance with the scheduling requirements imposed under the ISO, even when enforced with increasing strictness and in a somewhat arbitrary way, as described by the defendant. In circumstances in which the defendant appears to be successfully reintegrating into the community, has structure and stability in his life and regularly attends the same pre-approved locations, it was submitted that a scheduling condition under an ESO would be unnecessarily restrictive.

Consideration

81. The defendant is a man who, although convicted of only two serious sex offences as defined by s 5(1) of the CHRO Act [REDACTED] has a history of sexual offending that spans some 17 years, pointing to continuing risks around offending of this nature. In each instance the offences have been calculated and manipulative and some have involved a degree of planning. The defendant has exploited the vulnerabilities of his victims for his own sexual gratification and later, either denied or minimised his conduct. That history is as it is despite the defendant having completed therapeutic programmes prior to committing his last offences.

82. The risks to others, principally women and girls that the history suggests, has been and likely remains heightened by the defendant’s substance use disorder, currently in remission although still present.

83. The defendant’s accounts of his offending conduct over the years have generally sought to portray his victims as somehow deserving of or responsible for what had happened, and to minimise his own criminality. His insight remains limited, and more recent offences, including his failures to comply with reporting obligations as registered child sex offender, point to his continuing inability to comprehend scenarios that place him at risk of offending. These failures, taken with the defendant’s history of non-compliance with supervision, all heighten the likelihood that, if left to his own devices, the defendant will again breach the criminal law by committing a serious sex offence.

84. The defendant argues that he is already subject to adequate supervision but there are limitations, in nature and extent, that adversely affect the capacity of existing orders to provide the necessary high degree of supervision, and sufficiently ameliorate risk. The CCO allows for a reasonable level of monitoring, but it will expire in about 6 and a half months, an insufficient period to ensure the defendant’s full transition into the community as a law-abiding member of it. The CPPO and Child Offender registration do not permit the same level of personal oversight as does an ESO, and there is no power under either scheme to direct the defendant to undertake treatment or other therapeutic programmes.

85. The Child Protection (Offenders Prohibition Orders) Act 2004 (NSW) (“the CPOP Act”) empowers the Local Court to make prohibition orders with respect to the conduct of the subject of the order; it does not provide for directions as to conduct required of the person. Section 8 of that Act provides:

“8   Conduct that may be the subject of orders

(1)  A prohibition order may prohibit conduct of the following kind:

(a)  associating with or other contact with specified persons or kinds of persons,

(b)  being in specified locations or kinds of locations,

(c)  engaging in specified behaviour,

(d)  being a worker (within the meaning of the Child Protection (Working with Children) Act 2012) of a specified kind.

(2)  Subsection (1) does not limit the kinds of conduct that may be prohibited by a prohibition order.”

86. Section 16C provides for “contact prohibition orders”.

87. Whilst the power to prohibit the defendant from engaging in particular conduct, such as having contact with persons under 16 years of age, or attending areas designed for children’s play, is useful, an order under the CPOP Act cannot require the defendant to attend upon the FPS for example. Nor does the CPOP Act give a supervising officer powers of monitoring that go beyond ordinary techniques of police investigation. An officer supervising a person subject to an ESO, depending upon the conditions of it, will ordinarily have the power to search an offender’s home or electronic devices for example; police have those powers only if there is a legitimate basis for a warrant to issue which permits such searches. That is, enforcement of a CPPO is retrospective, following the suspected commission of a breach; monitoring of an ESO is preventative, and aims to intervene before a criminal offence is committed.

88. The same limitations are broadly true of orders made pursuant to the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 (NSW) (the CPOR Act”). Section 2A(b) of the CPOR Act gives as one of the objects of the Act the “early detection of offences by recidivist child sex offenders”. The intention of monitoring a recidivist child sex offender such as the defendant under an ESO is to prevent offences from being committed and rehabilitate the offender to prevent continued criminality. The reporting obligations under the CPOR Act are a useful tool for police in monitoring child sex offenders, but the Act does not provide for the same intensive personal scrutiny and support that an order under the CHRO Act does.

89. For an individual posing a low or minimal risk supervision under the CPOR Act and / or the CPOP Act is adequate; for an individual posing a higher risk, it is not.

90. Both experts have concluded that there is material risk that is best managed by an ESO and I have had regard to their respective reports and opinions. It is not necessary for the terminology used by Dr Youssef and Dr Smith to describe risk to directly mirror that used in the CHRO Act before the Court can give weight to the evidence.

91. I am satisfied to a high degree of probability that the defendant poses an unacceptable risk of committing another serious offence without the sort of supervision available under the CHRO Act. The test laid down by s 5B(d) of the CHRO Act is made out on the evidence.

92. The next issue in determining the State’s application is the extent to which supervision is required, namely, the conditions that should attach to an ESO. These were carefully considered at the interim stage by McNaughton J and I am generally in agreement with her Honour.

93. The defendant points to the progress he has made since his release to parole, and submits that there are features of his present lifestyle that are encouraging and which, to some extent, should mitigate the severity and intrusiveness of the conditions.

94. Both Dr Youssef and Dr Smith regarded the conditions as broadly appropriate and that is a view that the Court shares.

95. At the hearing the defendant submitted that the scheduling condition imposed by the ISO had operated in an overly restrictive and negative way. He pointed to the refusal of permission for him to undertake apparently wholesome activities, such as a visit to a coffee shop for a 2 hour period, and submitted that stringent enforcement of the scheduling condition was adverse to his rehabilitation, and the Court should not impose this condition pursuant to any ESO. The defendant relied on selected entries from the OIMS notes concerning his activities.

96. Given the importance of this issue, and the conflicting accounts of the past operation of the scheduling condition the parties were given leave to file further evidence and submissions on this aspect of the matter. The State filed Mr Banton’s second affidavit, of 2 August 2023, with some brief written submissions; the defendant did not seek to file further material. It appears from Mr Banton’s evidence that the defendant has been found by supervisors to be at locations other than those noted in his approved schedules since the imposition of the ISO. On 1 July 2023 the defendant was not at his home when his supervisor made an unannounced visit; when contacted by telephone he claimed to be on his motorbike at a beach. He raised the issue of some confusion about his schedule for that particular day, which his supervisor thought had some basis. However, another unannounced visit to his home by the defendant’s supervisor on 13 July 2023 again found him absent at a time when his schedule listed him as at his residence. When contacted by telephone the defendant offered an explanation that could not be verified. When a telephone search was to be conducted on 13 July 2023 the defendant claimed to have had to reset his telephone due to it being “hacked”. Re-setting the phone meant that the supervising officers could not check the data on it, it having been deleted in breach of condition 47 of the ISO.

97. On 16 July 2023 the defendant advised the ESO monitoring team that he was attending a coffee shop, a pre-approved activity. When supervisors attended the coffee shop soon after to verify his attendance, the defendant was not where he was supposed to be.

98. These breaches of the ISO, coupled with an unforthcoming attitude by the defendant as to the provision of information concerning his whereabouts, led the supervising officers to increase the level of scrutiny over the defendant’s movements, and tighten restrictions as to his activities. Mr Banton explained:

“The time restrictions on these and his remaining pre-approved activities are not intended to restrict the Defendant from putting any activity, including coffee, takeaway food, weekly shopping etc., onto his schedule for any length of time he chooses. The pre-approved locations are to allow him spontaneous and quick access to food, coffee, and top-up shopping by notifying the electronic monitoring centre rather than having to seek approval from his DSO. The new time restrictions are for spontaneous visits for coffee and food etc and are in response to increasing concerns that he is seeking to avoid supervision regarding where he is and who he is with. A time limit on the pre-approved spontaneous activity allows for the DSO to know when the Defendant should be home. If there is no scheduled activity, or notification to the monitoring room that he is attending a pre-approved location (including the new time period for the spontaneous activity), the Defendant is assumed to be at home and available for unannounced contact, searches, drug testing, compliance checks and checks on where he is and who he is with.”

99. On Mr Banton’s evidence, with which no issue has been taken, the refusals given to the defendant’s requests were neither unreasonable nor arbitrary; they were responsive to the defendant’s conduct and his perceived attempts to evade supervision. When the defendant was given written directions on 20 July 2023 to formalise oral directions concerning his movement, and the prohibition on deleting data from his phone, he refused to sign the documents.

100. In circumstances where the defendant is not subject to electronic monitoring, and has shown himself capable of what seems to be deviousness in his dealings with supervising officers, already breaching the conditions of the ISO and giving rather hollow explanations for the breaches, I am not persuaded that it is appropriate to decline to impose a scheduling condition. It is clear from the OIMS notes produced by Mr Banton in his second affidavit that the scheduling requirement can be administered with a degree of flexibility such as to permit spontaneous activity. However, if the defendant’s supervisors are to have any capacity to monitor the defendant’s movements and activities, a schedule of them is necessary. Should the defendant’s compliance improve in the near future, the defendant’s supervisors have the discretion to lessen the strictures of the scheduling condition or revoke the requirement altogether.

101. Dr Smith suggested that any scheduling condition be time limited, but the doctor was not aware of the defendant’s recent breaches of the ISO when he wrote his report. Had the defendant been compliant with the ISO that would have been a reasonable measure to both ensure adequate supervision, and recognise the improvements that the defendant has made. It is no longer appropriate to do so.

102. The Court is satisfied that an order for 2 years, with the conditions sought by the State and previously ordered on an interim basis by McNaughton J, is appropriate.

Schedule of Conditions of Supervision

In these conditions:

“CSNSW” means Corrective Services NSW.

“Commissioner” means Commissioner for Corrective Services.

“Defendant” means Jamil Ayoub, otherwise known as Jimmy Ayoub, Phil Baroni, Sam Lufe and Jimmy Jones, the defendant in these proceedings and the subject of the order.

“Digital Blueprint” has the same meaning as in the Weapons Prohibition Act 1998 (NSW) and means any type of digital (or electronic) reproduction of a technical drawing of the design of an object.

“Electronic Identity” means each of the following:

an email address,

a username or other identity allowing access to an instant messaging service,

a username or other identity allowing access to a chat room or social media on the internet,

any other username or other identity slowing access to the internet or an electronic communication service.

“DSO” means Departmental Supervising Officer, that is, any Corrective Services Officer supervising the defendant under the order.

“Material” includes:

any written or printed material;

any picture, painting or drawing;

any carving sculpture, statue, or figure;

any photograph, film, video recording or other object or thing from which an image may be reproduced;

any computer data or the computer record or system containing the data; and

any other material or object on which an image or representation is recorded or from which an image or representation may be reproduced.

“NSWPF” means NSW Police Force.

“Associate” includes, but is not limited to, being in company with, or to communicate by any means (including by post, facsimile, telephone, email or any other form of electronic communication).

“Search” includes:

A garment search, being a search of any article of clothing worn by the defendant or in the defendant’s possession, where the article of clothing is touched or removed from the person’s body; and

A pat-down search, meaning a search of the defendant where the defendant’s clothed body is touched.

Part A: Reporting and Monitoring Obligations

Monitoring and Reporting

The defendant must submit to the supervision and guidance of a DSO and obey all reasonable directions of a DSO.

Where a direction may conveniently be given in writing (or is required to be given in writing) it may be given electronically including by SMS or other messaging service.

The defendant must truthfully answer questions from a DSO, or any other person supervising him, about where he is, where he is going, who he is with, what he is doing and the nature of his associations.

Deleted.

Schedule of Movements

If directed, the defendant must submit a weekly schedule of proposed activities to the DSO for approval.

Deleted.

Deleted.

Deleted.

Part B: Accommodation

The defendant must live at an address approved by a DSO and notify a DSO of any intention to change the defendant’s address or living arrangements.

The defendant must allow a DSO to visit him at his approved address at any time and, for that purpose, to enter the premises at that address.

The defendant must not spend the night anywhere other than his approved address or any alternative approved addresses (if relevant) without the approval of a DSO.

The defendant must promptly notify a DSO of any visitor entering and remaining at his approved address and must not permit any person to stay overnight at his approved address (other than persons who ordinarily reside at his approved address) without the prior approval of a DSO.

Part C: Place and travel restrictions

The defendant must surrender any passports held by him to the Commissioner, must not be in possession of any passports, and must not attempt to apply for any passports.

The defendant must not leave New South Wales without the approval of the Commissioner of the CSNSW.

The defendant must not frequent or visit any place or district specified by a DSO.

Without limiting condition 15 above, the defendant must not go to any of the following places without the prior approval of a DSO:

Deleted.

Deleted.

Deleted.

Deleted.

Deleted.

Residences where the defendant knows that female persons aged between 12 and 18 years ordinarily reside; and

Internet cafes

The defendant must not attend any place used solely or mainly for the sale or display of sexually explicit material or for providing sexual services or sexually explicit entertainment, without the prior approval of a DSO.

Part D: Employment, finance and education

Deleted.

The defendant must not start on his own initiative any job, volunteer work or educational course without the approval of a DSO.

The defendant must notify a DSO of any intention to change his employment if practicable before the change occurs or otherwise at his next interview with a DSO.

Deleted.

Part E: Drugs and alcohol

The defendant must not use prohibited drugs, or abuse drugs unlawfully obtained.

The defendant must not:

Possess or consume alcohol without the prior approval of a DSO;

Possess or use prohibited drugs or drugs unlawfully obtained.

The defendant must submit to drug and alcohol testing.

The defendant must not enter any licensed premises (including hotels, bars, racecourses and licenced clubs, but excluding cafes and restaurants) that a DSO reasonably directs him not to enter.

The defendant must attend and participate in programmes and courses for drug and alcohol rehabilitation as reasonably directed by a DSO and must not discharge himself from such programs and courses without prior approval of a DSO.

Part F: Non-association

Association with Children

The defendant must not communicate or attempt to communicate, either directly or indirectly, with any person who he knows or reasonably should know is under the age of 18 years, including but not limited to in person, in writing, over the telephone, via text message over the internet, on social network or gaming sites, other than incidental contact in a public place, or actively seek to remain in the company of any person who he knows or reasonably should know is under 18 years of age, except when in the direct company of that person’s parent or guardian.

Associations with Others (not children)

The defendant must not associate with any person or persons specified by a DSO.

Without limiting condition 28, the defendant must not:

associate with any people he knows are consuming or under the influence of alcohol without the prior approval of a DSO. For the avoidance of doubt, the DSO may provide general approval to associate with particular persons (for example, family members) while they consume alcohol;

associate with any people who he knows are consuming or under the influence of illegal drugs;

associate with any person held in custody without prior approval of a DSO.

The defendant must not engage the services of sex workers, without the prior approval of a DSO.

The defendant must advise his DSO if he commences an intimate, sexual, romantic or close personal relationship with another person within one week of the commencement of that relationship.

The defendant must agree to a DSO disclosing his criminal history to another person, including any person falling within condition 31, if the disclosure is reasonably necessary to mitigate the risk posed by the defendant. Unless the nature of the risk to the relevant person is such as to require urgent disclosure by the DSO themselves, the defendant must first be given an opportunity to disclose his criminal history to the other person, and he must make this disclosure as soon as is reasonably practicable.

The defendant must obtain permission from a DSO prior to joining or affiliating with any club or organisation.

Part G: Gambling

Deleted.

Deleted.

Part H: Weapons

Deleted.

Deleted.

Part I: Access to the internet and other electronic communication

The defendant must obey any reasonable direction by a DSO about communication, internet access and use of electronic devices (including, but not limited to, approval of devices used, method of communication, access to the internet and restrictions on deleting information).

The defendant must not use any alias, electronic identity, log-in name, name other than “Jamil Ayoub” or any email address other than those known to a DSO. The defendant must give a DSO a list of all devices, services and applications he uses to communicate with or to access the internet and advise a DSO of any change to the list immediately. This includes phones, tablet devices, data storage devices or computers.

The defendant must only use an electronic device which has the ability to access the internet after the device has been disclosed to a DSO and the device has been seen and approved for use by a DSO.

The defendant must provide the details of telephone numbers, service provider account numbers, email addresses or other usernames.

The defendant must provide a DSO with all passwords, pin codes and pass codes used to access all electronic devices, electronic applications, internet sites and communication platforms of any kind, as and when a DSO reasonably directs.

The defendant must not use any coded or encrypted messaging application or service.

The defendant must provide any code or encryption for any electronic data or any electronic communication if discovered on the defendant’s electronic devices or accounts as a result of a search or a remote inspection.

The defendant must not access any form of social media, including (but not limited to) Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, YouTube and dating applications or websites, or any other internet platform or service that has an interactive or chat function.

The defendant must submit to a DSO (or any other person requested by a DSO) remotely inspecting any internet account used by the defendant, including any internet service provider account, email accounts and social media accounts, for the purpose only of monitoring compliance with these conditions.

The defendant must not delete or alter any applications, emails, text messages, any electronic message, call history, any data, internet search, internet or application search history, any application chat or communication history from his phone, computer, tablet or any other electronic device without the prior consent of a DSO.

The defendant must provide consent for his telephone provider and internet service provider to share information about his accounts with a DSO.

Part J: Search and seizure

The defendant must submit to the search of any item or place in his possession or under his control, including his residence, any vehicle in which he is travelling, or which is under his effective control, any computer, electronic and communication device, or any storage facility, garage, locker or commercial facility in each case as reasonably directed by a DSO and only in circumstances which the DSO reasonably suspects is necessary to give effect to these conditions or to prevent an imminent risk of harm; and to the seizure of any object located during the search where the DSO reasonably suspects it is necessary to seize the object to give effect to these conditions or to prevent an imminent risk of harm.

The defendant must not attempt to destroy or interfere with any object that is the subject of a search or seizure carried out pursuant to condition 49.

Part K: Access to pornographic, violent and classified material

The defendant must not purchase, possess, access, obtain, view, participate in or listen to material classified or material that would be classified as Refused Classification, X18+, Restricted Category 2 and Restrict Category 1, or any other material as directed by a DSO as a result of concerns related to the risk the defendant poses of committing a serious offence.

Part L: Personal details and appearance

The defendant must not change his name from Jamil Ayoub or use any other name without notifying a DSO.

The defendant must inform his DSO if there is any significant change to his appearance which results in the defendant looking different from any photographs taken pursuant to the condition below, including but not limited to the addition or removal of tattoos and/or the growth or removal of facial hair. The defendant must inform his DSO as soon as reasonably practicable.

The defendant must let a DSO photograph him, dressed, within one week of the commencement of these conditions and as soon as reasonably practicable following any significant change to his appearance.

If the defendant changes the details of any current form of identification or obtains further forms of identification, he must provide a DSO with such details.

Part M: Medical intervention and treatment

The defendant must undergo ongoing psychological or psychiatric assessment or counselling (or any combination of these) as directed by a DSO, including any therapy session, support and treatment programs the subject of the direction.

The defendant must notify a DSO of the identity and address of any psychological or psychiatric healthcare practitioner that he consults.

The defendant must attend, upon the direction of a DSO, any therapy sessions, disengagement services, support and treatment programs the subject of the direction.

The defendant must take medications that are prescribed to him by his healthcare practitioners only in the manner prescribed.

The defendant must notify a DSO immediately if he ceases to take or declines to commence taking any medication as referred to in the above condition.

The defendant must agree to his treatment and service providers and those healthcare practitioners who are psychologists or psychiatrists sharing information that suggests a material increase in his risk of sexual offending with each other and with a DSO. This sharing requirement does not apply to a psychologist who sees the defendant solely for the purpose of providing counselling in relation to the defendant's reported childhood abuse. A copy of this condition is to be provided to each psychologist and psychiatrist seen by the defendant in consultation.

Deleted.

The defendant must agree to the disclosure of his criminal history to any psychological or psychiatric healthcare professionals that are treating him.

Decision last updated: 24 August 2023