State of New South Wales v Azar (Preliminary)

Case •

[2025] NSWSC 1046

•

12 September 2025

Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: State of New South Wales v Azar (Preliminary) [2025] NSWSC 1046
Hearing dates: 26 August 2025
Date of orders: 4 September 2025
Decision date: 12 September 2025
Jurisdiction:Common Law
Before: Ierace J
Decision:

Reasons for orders made 4 September 2025:

1. Order pursuant to s 7(4) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (“the Act”) that:

a.    Two qualified psychiatrists or psychologists (or any combination of such persons) be appointed to conduct separate examinations of the defendant and to furnish reports to the Supreme Court on the results of those examinations by a date to be fixed by the Court; and

b.    The defendant is directed to attend those examinations.

2. Order pursuant to s 10A of the Act, that the defendant be subject to an interim supervision order commencing upon the expiration of the defendant’s current extended supervision order (“the interim supervision order”).

3. Order pursuant to s 10C(1) of the Act, that the interim supervision order be for a period of 28 days.

4. Order pursuant to s 11 of the Act, that the defendant, for the period of the interim supervision order, comply with the conditions set out in the Schedule to these orders.

5.    Order that access to the Supreme Court’s file in respect of any document shall not be granted to a non-party without the leave of a judge of the Court and, 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 orders — Preliminary hearing — Appointment of psychiatrists or psychologists — Whether matters in supporting documentation would, if proved, satisfy the Court “to a high degree of probability that the offender poses an unacceptable risk of committing another serious offence if not kept under supervision under the order” — Where certain conditions are opposed by defendant

Legislation Cited:

Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), ss 3(1), 3(2), 5A, 5B, 5B(a), 5B(b), 5B(c), 5B(d), 5D, 7(4), 7(5), 9(1)(a), 9(2), 9(3), 10A, 10A(b), 10C, 11, 15(4)

Cases Cited:

Attorney General for New South Wales v Tillman [2007] NSWCA 119

R v Kaddour; R v Azar [2017] NSWSC 586

State of New South Wales v Azar (Final) [2021] NSWSC 216

Texts Cited:

Supreme Court Practice Note SC CL 12, cl 26(1)

Category:Procedural rulings
Parties: State of New South Wales (Plaintiff)
Daniel Azar (Defendant)
Representation:

Counsel:
K Ng (Plaintiff)
T Weller-Wong (Defendant)

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor’s Office (Plaintiff)
Legal Aid NSW (Defendant)
File Number(s): 2025/274063

JUDGMENT

  1. HIS HONOUR: By summons filed on 15 July 2025, the State of New South Wales (the plaintiff) sought interim and final orders pursuant to the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) (the Act). Mr Azar (the defendant) is subject to an order made by the Guardianship Tribunal on 4 June 2025 for the guardianship of the defendant for a period of 12 months. Accordingly, the defendant participates in these proceedings through a member of the Guardian ad Litem Panel as his tutor, Ms Barbara Ramjan. She and the defendant are not otherwise known to each other.

  2. Orders were sought for the appointment of two psychiatrists and/or psychologists to examine the defendant and furnish their reports to the Court and directing the defendant to attend their examinations (ss 7(4) or 15(4) of the Act). The plaintiff also sought an interim supervision order (an ISO) for a period of 28 days, subject to proposed conditions (ss 10A, 10C and 11 of the Act). Orders are also sought forbidding access to the Court file by a non-party without prior notification to the parties, so as to allow them an opportunity to be heard. On 4 September 2025 I made the interim orders sought by the plaintiff and imposed conditions to the ISO. These are my reasons for those orders, and conditions.

  3. The plaintiff seeks final orders that the defendant be the subject of an extended supervision order (ESO) for a period of 3 years subject to the proposed conditions (ss 5B, 9(1)(a) and 11 of the Act). As is usual when an ESO is sought, a Schedule to the summons set out the proposed conditions of that order.

The defendant’s current status

  1. At the time of the preliminary hearing, the defendant was subject to an ESO that was made by Davies J on 17 March 2021 for a period of 3 years, commencing on that date: State of New South Wales v Azar (Final) [2021] NSWSC 216. The operation of the ESO was suspended on four occasions while the defendant was detained in custody or serving sentences of imprisonment for breaches of the conditions attached to the ESO. The ESO expired on 4 September 2025.

The relevant statutory provisions and principles

  1. Section 7(4) of the Act provides that if, following the preliminary hearing, the Court is satisfied that the matters alleged in the supporting documentation would, if proved, justify the making of an ESO, it must make orders of the type sought by the plaintiff for the appointment of forensic experts. If the Court is not so satisfied, it must dismiss the application pursuant to s 7(5) of the Act.

  2. Accordingly, although this was a preliminary hearing, it was necessary to evaluate whether the supporting material was sufficient to justify the making of an ESO, pursuant to the relevant statutory tests.

  3. Three prerequisites for the making of an ESO are required by s 5B of the Act. Section 5B subsections (a), (b) and (c) concern aspects of the defendant’s status as an inmate or supervised offender in the community. Those requirements were not contested, and I was independently satisfied that they had been met.

  4. That left the key provisions of ss 5B(d) and 10A(b) for consideration, namely, whether it appeared to the Court that the matters alleged in the supporting documentation would, if proved, satisfy the Court:

“… to a high degree of probability that the offender poses an unacceptable risk of committing another serious offence if not kept under supervision under the order.”

  1. In the context of the offending and behavioural history of the defendant, it appeared to be common ground that the concern was whether the defendant would commit a serious violence offence, as defined in s 5A of the Act:

“5A   Definition of ‘serious violence offence’

(1)   For the purposes of this Act, a serious violence offence is a serious indictable offence that is constituted by a person—

(a)   engaging in conduct that causes the death of another person or grievous bodily harm to another person, with the intention of causing, or while being reckless as to causing, the death of another person or grievous or actual bodily harm to another person, or

(a1) an offence under the Crimes Act 1900, section 37(1) or (2), or

(b)   attempting to commit, or conspiring with or inciting another person to commit, an offence of a kind referred to in paragraph (a) or (a1).

(2)   An offence that includes the elements referred to in subsection (1) (a) is a serious violence offence regardless of how those elements are expressed, and whether or not the offence includes other elements.

(2A)   A reference in subsection (1) (a) to—

(a)   conduct that causes the death of another person with the intention of causing the death of another person includes a reference to murder by an act done (by a person or an accomplice) in an attempt to commit, or during or immediately after the commission of, a serious crime, and

(b)   conduct that causes the death of another person while being reckless as to causing the death of another person includes a reference to manslaughter caused by an unlawful and dangerous act, and

(c)   conduct that causes grievous bodily harm to another person includes conduct that causes the wounding of another person, but only if the conduct was engaged in with the intention of causing the death of another person or grievous bodily harm to another person.

(3)   A serious indictable offence is—

(a) an offence committed in New South Wales that was a serious indictable offence (within the meaning of the Crimes Act 1900) at the time that it was committed, or

(b) an offence committed elsewhere than in New South Wales that, if committed in New South Wales, would be a serious indictable offence within the meaning of the Crimes Act 1900 at the time that it was committed, or

(c)   an offence that, at the time that it was committed, was not a serious indictable offence but which was committed in circumstances that would make the offence a serious indictable offence if it were committed at the time an application for an order against the person is made under this Act.”

  1. Section 5D of the Act provides that the Court is not required to determine that the risk of an offender committing a serious offence is “more likely than not” in order to determine that there is an “unacceptable risk” of the person committing such an offence.

  2. Section 9(3) of the Act sets out the matters the Court must have regard to in determining whether to make an ESO. The effect of s 7(4) is that these matters are also relevant to an application for an ISO.

  3. Section 9(2) of the Act provides that, in determining whether to make an ESO, “the safety of the community must be the paramount consideration of the Supreme Court”, consistently with the stated primary object of the Act, which is “the safety and protection of the community”: s 3(1). A secondary object of the Act is to encourage offenders who come within the Act to undertake rehabilitation: s 3(2).

  4. In making its determination at a preliminary hearing, the Court does not weigh the supporting documentation or predict the result at the final hearing: see Attorney General for New South Wales v Tillman [2007] NSWCA 119 at [98], which dealt with comparable provisions in an earlier version of the Act.

  5. It is apparent from the terms of s 10A that the Court has a discretion to make an ISO, even if all statutory requirements are met: “The Supreme Court may make an order for the interim supervision of an offender” (emphasis added).

  6. As mentioned, the defendant accepted that the statutory preconditions for the making of an ESO (s 5B subs (a)-(c) of the Act) were satisfied. However, the defendant contested the proposition that the Court would be satisfied that the offender poses an unacceptable risk of committing another serious violence offence if not kept under supervision pursuant to an ESO (s 5B(d) of the Act).

The defendant’s background

  1. A joint statement of agreed facts (the agreed facts) was tendered into evidence, pursuant to cl 26(1) of the Supreme Court Practice Note SC CL 12. Its contents, as to the defendant’s personal background and criminal offending, are as follows:

“Part B: Personal background

6   The defendant was born 18 February 1995. He grew up in Sydney as the youngest of five siblings and described an unremarkable childhood with no exposure to adverse experiences. At school, he experienced difficulties with reading, writing and mathematics and required the support of a teacher’s aide.

7   The defendant reported experiencing a traumatic incident involving a teacher at around age 14 but felt unable to disclose this at the time of the incident. His behaviour started to deteriorate shortly after that incident. He began to experience depression, use drugs and associate with antisocial peers instead of his family. He was asked to leave school in Year 9 and completed Year 10 at a special assistance school.

8   From the age of 14, the defendant commenced using cannabis and was consuming up to seven grams daily. He used methamphetamine together with benzodiazepine regularly since he was a teenager and started using heroin in 2018 whilst on parole. He also has a history binge drinking.

9   The defendant has a limited history of employment. He commenced an apprenticeship as a spray painter and worked at a smash repair business. He regularly attended the workplace under the influence of illicit substances and stopped working after approximately six months. The defendant also worked for a short period in a butcher’s shop and on demolition sites before he resumed his apprenticeship for around nine to ten months before leaving again due to drug use.

10   The defendant has been diagnosed with schizophrenia and a substance abuse disorder. He was found to meet the criteria for a mild intellectual disability. In the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (4th) edition was administered on the defendant in 2021. The defendant was found to perform in the Extremely Low Range and at the 2nd percentile on the verbal comprehension index. He is in the borderline range at the 5th percentile on the perceptual reasoning index. [The defendant’s] general Ability Index fell within the extremely low range at the 2nd percentile. This is consistent with having a mild intellectual disability. The defendant relies on the Disability Support Pension and receives support through the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS).

Part C: Relevant criminal and forensic history

Index offence – H 52886942

11 On 16 May 2017, the defendant was convicted and sentenced for manslaughter pursuant to s 18(1)(b) of the Crimes Act. The Crown accepted the defendant’s plea of guilty on the basis of substantial impairment by abnormality of mind pursuant to s 23A of the Crimes Act.

12   In the evening on 13 August 2013, the defendant and co-accused (ME) were sleeping inside the victim’s unit. The victim apparently pinched the defendant on the bottom which the defendant took to be something of a homosexual advance and was extremely angered by it. ME was woken up by [the defendant’s] angry response and the two of them left the unit. They met up with another co-accused (AK) and told him what had happened.

13   The three of them returned to the victim’s unit between 1:30am and 2:00am on 14 August 2013. ME left shortly after the attack. The defendant and AK inflicted fatal injuries on the victim. Their weapons primarily consisted of various objects and pieces of furniture inside the victim’s apartment. At around 10am on 14 August 2013, the victim’s body was found in his unit by Housing Commission contractors.

14   The Forensic Pathologist certified that the cause of the victim’s death was blunt force injuries. In addition to the blunt force injuries, there were sharp force injuries, multiple lacerations and fractures to the victim’s head, neck, trunk, limbs, base of the skull and nasal bones. The victim suffered a number of brain haemorrhages and contusions. An unspent bullet was found at the back of the victim’s throat.

15 The defendant was charged with an offence of murder on 20 August 2013. On 9 October 2015, the defendant was found unfit to be tried for the offence of murder by Justice Wilson and the matter was referred to the Mental Health Review Tribunal pursuant to s 14 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990.

16   On 10 December 2015, the Mental Health Review Tribunal found that the defendant was suffering from a mental illness and was unfit to be tried. The Mental Health Review Tribunal determined that the defendant was likely to become fit within 12 months of the Court’s finding of unfitness. Following treatment for his condition, the defendant’s mental state significantly improved. The tribunal had regard to reports of Dr Hearps and Dr Shweta which expressed the view that the defendant made good progress whilst on anti-psychotic medication. On 24 March 2016, the Mental Health Review Tribunal determined that the defendant had become fit to be tried for the offence of murder. Following a fitness hearing before Acting Justice Mathews on 18 April 2016, the defendant was found fit to be tried for the offence of murder. The Court heard the defendant manifested symptoms of psychosis, during the course of the interviews conducted by the assessing psychiatrist, which were most likely indicative of a schizophrenic illness or a schizoaffective disorder.

17   The defendant pleaded not guilty to a charge of murder and guilty to a charge of manslaughter on the basis of substantial impairment which was accepted by the Crown. The Crown accepted that as having suffered from chronic schizophrenia at the time of the offence, his capacity to control himself was substantially impaired by an abnormality of the mind arising from the underlying condition to the extent that his liability for murder was reduced to manslaughter.

18   On 16 May 2017, the defendant was sentenced by Acting Justice Mathews to a sentence of imprisonment of 7 years commencing on 19 December 2013 and expiring on 18 December 2020, with a non-parole period of 4 years commencing on 19 December 2013 and expiring on 18 December 2017.

19   In sentencing the defendant, Acting Justice Mathews found the defendant’s overreaction to the victim’s action was almost certainly, at least in part, attributable to his psychotic illness. Her Honour was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt as to the precise role played by the defendant and the co-offender AK in the fatal attack and which of them played the dominant role. Her Honour concluded that it was the combined actions of the two that led to the victim’s death. Her Honour accepted the offence was spontaneous as opposed to a premediated attack which significantly reduced the objective seriousness of the offence. [Her Honour] found the objective seriousness to be within the mid-range.

20   Her Honour found the sole aggravating factor was that the defendant had a record of previous convictions. In terms of mitigating factors, her Honour found a significant factor was that the defendant was only 18 at the time of the offence and considered that rehabilitation assumed much more significance in the sentencing process, at the expense of general deterrence and public denunciation. Her Honour accepted that if the defendant continued his psychiatric treatment and abstained from using illicit substances, he had good prospects of rehabilitation and was unlikely to reoffend. Other mitigating factors were the defendant’s deep remorse for his actions and plea of guilty to the offence of manslaughter.

21   Her Honour afforded the defendant a discount of approximately 15% to the sentence, noting the offer to plead guilty was made relatively early in the court processes.

Earlier offending

Possess or use prohibited weapon without permit (H 49834010)

22   At around 12:35am on 24 February 2013, police were approached by an off duty police officer in relation to a male believed to be in possession of a small knife. Police located the defendant who was standing under the footbridge in a public place outside Home Night Club matching the description given by the off duty police officer. Police introduced themselves to the defendant and advised they had reason to believe he was in possession of a knife. The defendant pulled something out of his left pocket which was observed as silver knuckle dusters. Police searched the defendant but did not locate a knife. The defendant stated ‘I found it in the park and picked it up’. He further stated ‘Can I just have a one off. I came to the city with my cousin to pick up my cousin. I pulled them out accidentally when I was looking for my phone’.

23   On 9 April 2013, the defendant was sentenced at Downing Centre Local Court and received a fine of $1000 for an offence of possess or use prohibited weapon without permit.

Possess prohibited drug (H 52436169)

24   On 22 June 2013 at around 2:30am, police stopped a vehicle with three males in the vehicle. Police informed the occupants that they were going to search the vehicle as they believed they may be in possession of illegal drugs. While seated on the gutter, police observed the defendant throw something from his left hand onto the footpath behind them. Police located the object which was a small clear resealable bag containing green vegetable matter. Police also located two small clear resealable plastic bags containing green vegetable matter in the side compartment of the front driver’s door. The defendant made admissions to the knowledge and possession of the green vegetable matter that he had thrown behind him and the green vegetable matter located in the side of the driver front door. Police weighed the green vegetable matter which gave a reading of 2.22 grams. The facts are silent on whether or not this weight included the packaging.

25   The defendant was convicted and sentenced to 2 months imprisonment commencing on 2 October 2013 and concluding on 1 December 2013 for an offence of possess prohibited drug. Following an all-grounds appeal, the conviction was confirmed by the District Court at Parramatta on 8 December 2024.

Offences subsequent to the index offending

Assault officer in execution of duty (dv), resist officer in execution of duty (dv), armed with intent commit indictable offence, destroy or damage property <=$2000 (dv) (H 69734678)

26   On 13 June 2018, the defendant attended his uncle’s address and began hitting the front screen door with a closed fist several times before pacing up and down the front porch. The defendant returned to the front screen door and continued to knock with his left hand. He held a knife in his right hand as he paced up and down the porch. The defendant used the knife to repeatedly stab the door as he continued to knock on the screen door. The defendant’s uncle opened the door, saw the knife in the defendant’s hand and proceeded upstairs to contact police.

27   On 13 December 2018, the defendant was convicted and sentenced at Parramatta Local Court to a term of imprisonment of 12 months commencing on 11 June 2018 and [ending on] 10 July 2019, with a non-parole period of 6 months concluding 10 December 2018 for an offence of assault officer in execution of duty (dv). For the offences of resist officer in execution of duty (dv) and destroy or damage property <=$2000 (dv), the defendant was sentenced to 3 months imprisonment commencing on 11 June 2018 and concluding on 10 September 2018. The defendant was also convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months commencing on 24 June 2018 and concluding on 23 June 2019, with a non-parole period of 6 months concluding on 23 December 2018 for an offence of armed with intent to commit indictable offence.

Fail to comply with extended/interim supervision order (x 2) (H 78390862)

28   On 16 December 2021, the defendant was issued a formal written direction after he was identified to be intimidating and threatening towards Community Corrections Electronic Monitoring staff. On 21 January 2021, the defendant was issued a verbal warning in relation to his threatening and abusive behaviour towards Electronic Monitoring staff. On 23 January 2021, the defendant contacted Community Corrections requesting to visit his sister which was a pre-approved location. The request was not forwarded to the rest of the Community Corrections team and the defendant contacted his supervising officer saying ‘Fuck you you dog. Fuck your mum. Fuck you.’ At around 12:30pm, a Departmental Supervising Officer and Unit Leader visited the defendant. The defendant said that he ‘does not want to talk to you cunts anymore’ and would not listen to anything his supervising officers were saying. The defendant yelled at them to ‘Fuck off as he was trying to watch TV’ and he threw the television remote at the wall. The defendant then said ‘Get the fuck out. Come back tomorrow. Get the fuck out’.

29   The defendant was convicted and sentenced for two counts of failing to comply with the interim supervision order at Mount Druitt Local Court on 1 July 2022. The defendant was sentenced to a Community Correction Order of 15 months commencing on 1 July 2022 and concluding on 30 September 2023. The Community Correction Order was called up at Parramatta Local Court on 22 June 2023 however no breach action was taken.

Fail to comply with extended/interim supervision order (x 2) (H 80524918)

30   The defendant was a listed contact of an inmate who was housed in a correctional centre. A review of calls on the Offender Telephone System showed the defendant was in regular contact with the inmate up until 24 April 2021 in breach of the defendant’s ESO conditions. On 15 May 2021, a search of the defendant’s mobile phone showed the call log for 24 April 2021 had been deleted and no record of the calls received from the inmate existed on the device which was a breach of the defendant’s ESO conditions.

31   Specifically, the defendant breached condition 24 (c) prohibiting contact with persons in custody without approval, and condition 38 prohibiting the deletion of data from devices.

32   On 10 August 2021 at Blacktown Local Court, the defendant was convicted and sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 10 months commencing on 17 May 2021 and concluding on 16 March 2022 with a non-parole period of 5 months concluding on 16 October 2021 for two counts of failing to comply with the extended supervision order. Following a sentence appeal, the District Court at Parramatta varied the sentence to a Community Correction Order of 6 months commencing on 24 September 2021 and concluding on 23 March 2022.

Riot (H 1104647190)

33   On 12 July 2021, the defendant participated in a ‘riot’ involving 41 inmates at Parklea Correctional Centre whereby inmates climbed onto the roof, lit fires, attempted to throw lit paper and books at correcti[onal] officers and assaulted correctional officers by throwing projectiles at them. The defendant assisted other inmates to climb onto the roof, tied a sheet around his head and assisted in making a makeshift rope. In July 2021 the City of Sydney was in ‘lockdown’ due to the covid-19 pandemic and visits had been suspended to the facility. Correctional officers had noticed an increase in tension between inmates at this time.

34   On 14 October 2022 at the Downing Centre District Court, the defendant was convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 months commencing on 12 July 2021 and concluding on 11 September 2021 for an offence of riot.

Fail to comply with extended/interim supervision order (H 96174568)

35   Between 14 March 2024 and 15 March 2024, the defendant attended an address in Blacktown without approval which was a breach of his ESO conditions. The defendant was convicted and sentenced at Blacktown Local Court on 22 March 2024 for an offence of fail to comply with extended supervision order. The defendant was sentenced to an aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 9 months commencing on 15 March 2024 and concluding on 14 December 2024 with a non-parole period of 3 months concluding on 14 June 2024. The defendant appealed the sentence which was confirmed by the District Court at Parramatta on 14 May 2024.

Stalk/intimidate intend fear physical etc harm (domestic) (H78015521)

36   On 20 June 2023, the defendant texted his brother asking his brother to lend him money. After the defendant’s brother replied ‘I don’t have’, the defendant texted ‘You want war to ya dog.’ The defendant also texted his brother ‘I’m gonna get all of yous one by one. Yous all want to ignore me. I’m going fuck yous all with blades watch. Lock the fuckn doors. You don’t know when I’m gonna comin in. Watch all your backs.’ The defendant’s brother told the defendant ‘Don’t talk to me again.’ The defendant then texted his brother ‘Fuck your kik ya dog. Yous all gonna die watch.’

37   On 22 June 2023, the defendant was convicted and sentenced at Parramatta Local Court to a Community Correction Order for 12 months commencing on 22 June 2023 and concluding on 21 June 2024 for an offence of stalk/intimidate intend fear of physical or mental harm (domestic). The Community Correction Order was called up at Blacktown Local Court on 22 March 2024 and the defendant was resentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 9 months commencing on 15 March 2024 and concluding on 14 December 2024 with a non-parole period of 3 months concluding on 14 June 2024. Following a sentence appeal, the order was confirmed at the District Court at Parramatta on 14 May 2024.

Fail to comply with extended/interim supervision order (x 3) (H 81129169)

38   On 14 March 2025 at around 8pm, the defendant attended Auburn Hotel and remained there until 8:50pm. The defendant was contacted by a Community Corrections Officer and asked to return home. The defendant refused and remained at the hotel. The defendant then travelled to Sydney city and remained in the Darling Harbour area. He was again contacted by a Community Corrections officer and asked to return home. The defendant declined and disconnected the call. The defendant returned home around 11:40pm.

39   The defendant was convicted and sentenced to three counts of failing to comply with the extended supervision order at Burwood Local Court on 26 March 2024. The defendant was sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 15 months commencing on 14 April 2024 and concluding on 13 July 2025 with a non-parole period of 8 months concluding 13 December 2024. The orders were confirmed by the District Court at Parramatta following a severity appeal.

Common assault (H 83094203)

40   On 13 December 2024, the defendant entered the care of Australian National Disability Care and was sent to a reside at a residence under the care of the victim and other staff. On 28 December 2024 at around 5:30pm, the defendant approached the victim and asked for $50. The victim texted his manager who did not authorise this request. At around 10pm, the defendant approached the victim asking him to call the manager. The defendant was standing in front of the victim and grabbed the victim by the collar of his shirt. The defendant held the victim’s shirt yelling ‘Just listen to me, when I’m telling you call the manager’.

41 The defendant was convicted and sentenced at Parramatta Local Court on 30 May 2025 to a s 10A conviction with no other penalty for an offence of common assault.

Common assault (dv) (H98234110)

42   On 12 March 2025, the defendant’s uncle was driving his son’s vehicle along Blaxcell Street, Granville. The defendant’s uncle received a call from his friend and came to a kerbside stop. A short time later, the car door opened and the defendant’s uncle was slapped twice to the left side of his face by the defendant. The defendant asked ‘Where are my cousins? Where is Dennis, where is Mark?’

43   On 17 June 2025 at Parramatta Local Court, the defendant was convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 4 months commencing on 12 March 2025 and concluding 11 July 2025 for an offence of common assault (dv).

Outstanding charge

Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (H 95897910)

44   The police facts allege that on 29 June 2024, while the defendant was in custody at Shortland Correctional Centre, he became agitated when the officers would not let him out of the pod and fix his tablet. At around 10:05am, a correctional officer entered the area with an inmate. [1] The defendant punched the correctional officer no less than 8 times with his right closed first and once with his left closed fist to the victim’s face and back of his head. The officer fell to the floor and the defendant tried to kick the victim in the head with his right leg, with the defendant’s foot brushing the top of the victim’s head. The officer retreated and lost consciousness. The matter is next listed on 3 September 2025 at Cessnock Local Court for an application pursuant to s 14 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW). The defendant has pleaded not guilty to this matter and none of the allegations have been proved at the time of writing.

1. The agreed facts on the lead-up to this incident are abbreviated in a way that they do not quite make sense. The police facts are to the effect that the defendant had requested to be let out of his pod into the “keyhole area” which is where the correctional officers were, so that they could fix his tablet. The officers did not have that ability. The defendant was agitated and “after numerous interactions with [the defendant] the officers decided not to allow the accused out of the pod into the keyhole area”. When another inmate returned from another area and wished to be let into the pod, the victim opened the door to let the inmate in, which is when the incident occurred.

Treatment and programs

45   The defendant has participated and completed the following programs in custody:

a   EQUIPS Aggression (completed on 24 August 2017);

b   EQUIPS Addiction (completed on 13 November 2017);

c   EQUIPS Foundation (completed on 11 April 2018); and

d   EQUIPS Addiction (completed a second time on 18 April 2019).

46   The defendant participated briefly in the High Intensity Program Units: Violent Offenders Therapeutic Program (VOTP) however he requested to be removed from the program on 17 September 2018. The defendant was found suitable to participate in the VOTP on 17 April 2019 and after initially declining a treatment offer, the defendant was inducted in the program on 31 July 2019. He commenced the assessment phase of the program on 9 August 2019 and commenced group participation on 17 December 2019. Due to an increase in the defendant’s aggressive behaviour, use of derogatory language and threats towards psychology staff, the defendant was suspended from the VOTP in 2020 and removed from the waitlist on 10 June 2020 without completing the program.

47   The defendant has not engaged in any offence and/or risk specific programs since the ESO was imposed.

Current status

48   …

49   …

50   Currently [the defendant] is providing no detail on his weekly schedule, instead considering his mental health, inability to forward plan, and instability of supports he is permitted to call his DSO once per day to define the activities planned for the day. He has also been allowed a list of pre-approved activities on his schedule that he can access by informing Electronic Monitoring prior to his departure.

51   …”

  1. The agreed facts cavass the contents of eight expert reports, as follows:

“Part D: Summary of conclusions of expert reports

Risk Assessment Report of Holly Cieplucha dated 17 January 2024

52   On 17 January 2024, Ms Cieplucha, Senior Psychologist of the Serious Offenders Assessment Unit, prepared a Risk Assessment Report (RAR) pursuant to s 6(3)(b) of the Act.

53   Ms Cieplucha assessed the defendant against the Violent Risk Appraisal Guide – Revised (VRAG-R). Ms Cieplucha notes that the defendant’s score places him in the eighth of nine ‘bins’ (ninth being the highest) which would classify him as a high risk, compared to other violent offenders. Ms Cieplucha further notes that 58% of violent offenders in this risk bin reoffended violently within 5 years at risk and 78% reoffended violently within 12 years at risk.

54   Ms Cieplucha also notes the defendant was previously assessed using the Level of Service Inventory – Revised (LSI-R) on 18 May 2023 and his score fell in the Medium/High range of risk/needs for general and violent offending.

55   Based on the defendant’s current risk of violent-reoffending, Ms Cieplucha identifies the following dynamic risk factors as being relevant to the defendant:

i.   Emotional control and interpersonal aggression;

ii.   Compliance with supervision;

iii.   Cognitive distortion/insight into violence/criminal attitudes;

iv.   Impulsivity;

v.   Release to high risk situations/violence cycle/anti-social peers;

vi.   Work ethic;

vii.   Weapon use;

viii.   Community support;

ix.   Mental disorder;

x.   Substance abuse;

xi.   Violence during institutionalisation.”

56   In addressing the defendant’s dynamic risk factors, Ms Cieplucha opines that the defendant remains unable to effectively self-regulate, and interpersonal conflict remains a key factor to be addressed in risk management intervention. Ms Cieplucha notes the defendant engages in aggressive and abusive communication and has made threats to harm others including towards his family members. Ms Cieplucha also observes that the defendant has been abusive, threatening and intimidating towards NDIS workers, ESO and Electronic Monitoring staff which appears to be driven by his attempts to have his perceived needs met or to express his frustration. Ms Cieplucha considers that the defendant’s prognosis remains guarded due to his mental health and cognitive functions. Ms Cieplucha notes that the defendant has not engaged in any actual acts of physical or serious violence [since the] commencement of the ESO. [2]

2. I note that Ms Cieplucha’s report pre-dated the incident of 29 June 2024.

57   Ms Cieplucha notes the defendant’s serious violence offence occurred during a period of significant mental and behaviour instability in the context of substance use, which was triggered by fears of a pending sexual assault. Ms Cieplucha states ‘it is hypothesised that his cognitive deficits, attitudes that condone the use of violence, difficulties with emotional regulation and diminished behavioural control due to intoxication contributed to the defendant perpetrating his serious violent offence’. Ms Cieplucha considers that these factors, with the exception of substance abuse, continue to perpetuate the defendant’s ongoing use of aggression and rule violations.

58   In considering the defendant’s general progress of the course of the ESO, Ms Cieplucha notes that the defendant’s mental health has at times been unstable, he has limited social supports outside of his family and has routinely requested to have contact with antisocial influences despite being issued with written directions around non-associations. Ms Cieplucha further notes the defendant’s combative behaviour with staff regarding his restrictions, difficulties coping with his ESO conditions as well as his struggles with loneliness, isolation and problematic gambling. Ms Cieplucha observes that ‘Overall, little progress appears to have been made with respect to risk management intervention over the course of the Order.’

59 Ms Cieplucha considers that the defendant continues to present with a high density of criminogenic needs despite being subject to an ESO since 2021 and that his response to supervision has been poor. Ms Cieplucha observes that the defendant continues to use threats of violence to have his perceived needs met and to force compliance in others. Ms Cieplucha opines that it is possible the defendant could commit a future ‘serious violence offence’ as defined in the Act, based on the defendant’s history and outstanding needs.

60   As to the defendant’s potential risk scenario for future violent offending, Ms Cieplucha considers the following risk scenarios hypothesised in the RAR dated 20 March 2020 by Ms Mandy Lau, Psychologist from the CSNSW Serious Offenders Assessment Unit, and the ESO Completion Risk Assessment Report dated 11 August 2023 prepared by Mr Tim Wu, Acting Senior Psychologist from the CSNSW Serious Offenders Assessment Unit, are both plausible. The potential risk scenarios hypothesised by Ms Lau and Mr Wu are as follows:

a   Ms Lau opines that if the defendant were to fail to adhere to the ongoing management of his mental illness, he may struggle to cope with daily stressors and lapse to illicit drug use for temporary relief. Ms Lau considers that by that stage, the defendant would have disengaged with all mental health supports or treatment and become reliant on illicit substances to manage his mental health symptoms. Ms Lau also opines that the defendant may be less likely to recognise that he is becoming aggressive in his interactions with others and be further impaired in his ability to manage his behaviour which may elevate his risk of being disproportionately reactive to minor stressors. Ms Lau also considers that if the defendant had access to weapons or items that could be used as impromptu weapons, there is a possibility the defendant could inflict a severe level of violence on a victim. Ms Lau opines that a victim is more likely to be a person who has regular contact with the defendant and who he perceives at the time to be causing his frustration, anger or feelings of distress.

b   Mr Wu considers that the removal of conditions and restrictions would likely lead to the defendant returning to gambling behaviour, alcohol use, abusing prescription medication, and associating with anti-social peers who may reinforce his criminal attitudes about violence. Mr Wu notes that these activities are likely to place the defendant under financial stress and motivate him to make threats for money. It would also increase the risk of creating high risk situations including the risk of the defendant returning to substance use and involvement in crime or violence. Mr Wu also notes there would be decreased oversight of the defendant’s mental health treatment which may have the effect of non-compliance with medication and cause his mental health to deteriorate. Mr Wu opines that the defendant may be more likely to misinterpret situations, have his underlying attitude about violence triggered, and respond accordingly in a violent manner. Mr Wu considers the defendant would be more likely to be at risk of committing a serious violent offence should he use weapons in the context of being mentally unwell.

61   In the event the defendant is found suitable for a further ESO, Ms Cieplucha considers that the defendant could be subject to the following risk management strategies:

a   The defendant could be referred for individual risk management from a community based Corrective Services NSW Senior Psychologist to assist in the management of live risk issues and to support him in his use of risk management skills;

b   Compliance with psychiatric medication and enhancing insight to the defendant’s mental illness which Ms Cieplucha considers critical considerations in risk management;

c   The defendant could be subject to unannounced home visits, breath- analysis and drug testing to ensure abstinence from illicit substance use;

d   Social contacts would be scrutinised and relationships or associations could be monitored to ensure the defendant is not associating with antisocial peers and to increase the defendant’s pro-social influences;

e   The defendant may be obliged to wear electronic monitoring equipment and to provide a schedule of daily activities which may assist in his impulsive decision-making.

Supplementary Risk Assessment Report of Holly Cieplucha dated 9 August 2024

62   Ms Cieplucha prepared a supplementary RAR dated 9 August 2024. In her supplementary report, Ms Cieplucha notes that the defendant’s mental health has fluctuated significantly and there have been concerns regarding the defendant’s medication compliance since the initial RAR dated 17 January 2024 was furnished.

63   Ms Cieplucha considers that there would not have been a reduction in the defendant’s overall risk ratings since his assessment against the VRAG-R and Violence Risk Scale (VRS). Ms Cieplucha also considers the dynamic risk factors identified in the initial RAR remain relevant or potentially relevant when considering the defendant’s current risk of violent re-offending. Ms Cieplucha opines that the defendant continues to fall in the High risk range and continues to present with a high density of criminogenic needs.

Risk Management Report of Krishna Iyer dated 12 February 2024

64   A Risk Management Report (RMR) was prepared by Krishna Iyer, Departmental Supervising Officer, Metropolitan Extended Supervision Orders Team, dated 12 February 2024 to satisfy the requirements of s 9(3)(d1) of the Act.

65   In her report, Ms Iyer states that the defendant has consistently demonstrated a history of poor compliance with Community Corrections supervision. In terms of the defendant’s general progress over the course of the ESO, Ms Iyer notes that the defendant’s mental health has been unstable at times, he has limited social supports outside of his family and regularly requests to have contact with anti-social associates. Ms Iyer also notes that the defendant has reported difficulties in coping with his conditions, has been combative with ESO staff in relation to his conditions and struggles with loneliness, isolation and problematic gambling.

66   Ms Iyer observes that the defendant was afforded the opportunity to engage with a CSNSW Senior Psychologist however he has been extremely resistant to engage which has resulted in minimal progress in respect of risk management over the course of the ESO. Ms Iyer states the defendant has reported engaging in sessions with a private psychologist over the years however the ESO team has been unable to verify what particular topics and issues were explored during these sessions and if any therapeutic intervention related to risk was undertaken.

67   As to the defendant’s supervision plan, Ms Iyer states that the defendant would have at least weekly face to face contact with Community Corrections as well as motivational interviewing and behavioural change exercises to encourage the defendant to engage in open discussions about his offending behaviour, interventions, associations and activities. Ms Iyer also notes that there would be field visits, both announced and unannounced, which may extend to observations of the defendant engaging in the community. Contact would also be made with third parties on a weekly basis to ensure the defendant’s attendance and engagement in those interventions.

68   Ms Iyer considers that the following conditions are appropriate to supervise and manage the defendant while in the community subject to an ESO:

a   Schedule of movements – requires a weekly schedule of movement to assist Community Corrections to aid the defendant to plan his activities in advance and to develop a structured routine. Also to assist Community Corrections to identify and mitigate any potential risks for offending and assist the defendant in engaging in prosocial activities. Would also allow Community Corrections to verify and monitor attendance at interventions and assess any potential activities and/or associations.

b   Electronic monitoring – to monitor the defendant’s movements in the community and his compliance with his schedule of movements. Allows Community Corrections to conduct regular movement audits to identify any concerning patterns in his behaviour that may be related to defendant’s identified risks of offending and to implement exclusion zones to detect the defendant approaching areas that are known risks.

c   Place and travel restrictions – to mitigate potential risks for further offending through management of movements.

d   Accommodation – to assess any proposed residence for relevant risks, ensure the defendant is residing at the approved address and to restrict any person to enter and remain without prior approval to allow the defendant’s relationships and associations to be effectively monitored.

e   Employment and education – allows Community Corrections to assess potential high-risk individuals and/or situations that may place the defendant in a position to engage in inappropriate behaviour.

f   Non-association – requires the defendant to notify his DSO of any person the defendant intends to form a relationship with, in light of the defendant’s extensive anti-social influences and peers. Also allows Community Corrections to assess the individual’s influence on the defendant and permits Community Corrections to make disclosures of the defendant’s offending history where necessary.

g   Electronic communications and internet access – allows Community Corrections to implement directions should concerns arise, and subsequently identify and monitor any issues that may become apparent from a search of the defendant’s devices. Enables Community Corrections to monitor any potential concerns around non-association contact, new relationships with organised groups and identify any interactions that may indicate escalation in risk related behaviour and/or substance use.

h   Drugs and alcohol – to ensure the defendant is not engaging in any substance use which may indicate increased risk of committing a further serious violence offence by conducting alcohol breath tests and drug tests.

i   Search and seizure – to effectively monitor the defendant and his reintegration into the community. Searches can include, but are not limited to, any electronic devices, the defendant’s residence, his person and/or anything in his possession and/or control. Allows Community Corrections to monitor the defendant and his compliance with his order and ensure the defendant is not engaging in any risk related behaviour.

j   Personal details and appearance – prohibits the defendant from making any changes to his identification information and mandatory prior approval from a DSO before significantly changing his appearance would allow Community Corrections or ESOIT to easily identify and observe the defendant in the community if required and any online aliases the defendant may create.

k   Medical intervention and treatment – adherence to ongoing psychological/psychiatric treatment which are deemed essential in the management of the order. Provides Community Corrections timely opportunities to provide early interventions in times of escalated mental health behaviours that link to an increased risk of offending.

l   Programs and Risk Related Interventions – to require the defendant to attend any assessments and subsequent community-based interventions that are recommended by professionals, including appropriate therapeutic intervention for his aggression/violence risk factor, as directed by Community Corrections. Continued engagement would support the defendant’s reintegration and address his criminogenic needs.

m   Weapons – to prevent the defendant from being able to utilise weapons as a means of committing further violent offences.

Supplementary Risk Management Report of Vanessa Gregg dated 9 September 2024

69   A supplementary RMR dated 9 September 2024 was prepared by Ms Vanessa Gregg, Team Leader, Metropolitan Extended Supervision Orders Team.

70   Ms Gregg considers that the defendant’s response to his ESO supervision overall is poor, noting his behaviour became increasingly unstable, erratic and hostile. Ms Gregg noted that his behaviour was at times compliant and polite. Ms Gregg observes that the defendant’s behaviour escalated in tandem with increasing instability, which included changing his NDIS providers at short notice, allegations of verbally abusing and striking a caseworker to the face twice, breaching his ESO multiple times which ultimately resulted in his arrest for three counts of failing to comply with his ESO.

71   Ms Gregg notes that the defendant was required to engage with a Corrective Services NSW (CSNSW) psychologist for Risk Management Intervention sessions however he refused to engage. Ms Gregg further notes the defendant reportedly engaged with a private psychologist however the regularity and content of these sessions remain unclear.

72   Ms Gregg considers that the supervision plan and recommended conditions outlined in the RMR remain appropriate.

ESO Completion RAR of Tim Wu dated 11 August 2023

73   An ESO Completion RAR was prepared by Mr Tim Wu, Acting Senior Psychologist, Serious Offenders Assessment Unit, dated 11 August 2023.

74   Mr Wu notes the defendant was previously assessed against the VRS in 2019 in which his risk of being convicted of further violent offences was estimated as being within the High risk range. Mr Wu reassessed the defendant against the VRS on 8 August 2023 with the overall result estimating the defendant as being within the High risk range of being convicted of further violent offences. Mr Wu notes that in a group of 918 federally sentenced Canadian inmates who had also been rated on the VRS, 44.5% of those with a similar score to the defendant were criminally convicted for a new violent offence within five years after release while 67.8% were criminally convicted for a new non-violent offence within five years after release.

75   Mr Wu notes that although there was no change on the defendant’s risk range on the VRS, his total score had decreased to the next recidivism bin and therefore the reported percentages were lower compared to when he completed treatment in custody.

76   Mr Wu considers that the following dynamic factors were relevant when considering the defendant’s risk of violent re-offending:

a   Emotional control/interpersonal aggression;

b   Compliance with supervision;

c   Cognitive distortion/insight into violence/criminal attitudes;

d   Impulsivity;

e   Released to high risk situations/violence cycle/anti-social peers;

f   Work ethic;

g   Weapon use;

h   Community support;

i   Mental disorder;

j   Substance abuse; and

k   Violence during institutionalisation.

77   Mr Wu considers that the defendant’s response to supervision has been poor, noting his further offending while on the 2021 ESO. Mr Wu observes there have been multiple instances where the defendant engaged in abusive and threatening behaviour towards CSNSW staff although the defendant did not engage in instances of physical violence towards them. Mr Wu further notes the defendant had not engaged in meaningful employment or routine, and his pro-social support network has not progressed beyond his family and professional staff.

78   Mr Wu observes that the ESO appears to have only contained the risk of the defendant committing a further serious violent offence. Mr Wu states ‘The risk assessment indicates he has not made behavioural changes regarding his risk factors beyond substance abuse, and he remains unable to self-regulate or self- manage the majority of his risk factors’.

79   Mr Wu opines that ‘Should [the defendant’s] ESO not be extended, the removal of conditions and restrictions would likely lead to [the defendant] returning to gambling behaviour, alcohol use, abusing prescription medication, and associating with anti- social peers who may reinforce his criminal attitude about violence’. Mr Wu considers that a further ESO would allow the defendant to continue receiving monitoring by CSNSW and would contain his risks with respect to gambling, financial stress, associating with anti-social peers and substance use. Mr Wu also considers that a further ESO would provide oversight of his mental health treatment compliance, allow him to receive ongoing interventions to address his risk factors and develop self-regulation strategies.

Other reports

Report of Dr Susan Pulman dated 27 January 2021

80 Dr Susan Pulman, Forensic Psychologist, was appointed pursuant to s 7(4) of the Act to examine the defendant and furnish a report to the Supreme Court of New South Wales for the purposes of the application for the 2021 ESO. Dr Pulman furnished a report dated 27 January 2021.

81   Dr Pulman assessed the defendant against the Historical Clinical Risk Management-20, Version 3 (HCR-20) tool with the following results:

a   The defendant’s risk of future violent reoffending was predicted to be High; and

b   Based on the HCR-20, the defendant’s historical and clinical risk factors placed him in the high risk range of committing a further serious offence without appropriate monitoring and supervision.

82   Dr Pulman administered the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale – Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV) and found that the defendant’s general cognitive ability fell within the Extremely Low range and at the 2nd percentile consistent with a mild intellectual disability.

83   Dr Pulman noted there were statistically significant and clinically abnormal discrepancies between aspects of the defendant’s cognitive functioning, specifically the discrepancy between the defendant’s verbal comprehension and his processing speed with only 7.8% of the normal population having a discrepancy between those two abilities of that magnitude. Dr Pulman stated ‘This means although [the defendant] has impaired understanding of verbal concepts, his reaction time is within the normal range. He is therefore likely to misunderstand information yet react quickly without having given due consideration to what he has heard or understood. Similarly his attention and concentration abilities are impaired. His inability to concentrate and attend to information adequately further exacerbates his risk of overreacting given his processing speed is much faster than his ability to pay attention and comprehend what he hears or understands. He is therefore at a greater risk of overreacting and misunderstanding information presented to him'.

84   Dr Pulman considered that the defendant continued to have limited insight into his mental illness and need for ongoing treatment, stating ‘he subsequently stated that he hoped he would been able to reduce his medication with a view to eventually ceasing treatment. This suggests [the defendant] continues to have limited insight as he regards his mental illness as temporary most likely attributable to his use of illicit substances.’

85In noting the defendant’s diagnoses of schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder, Dr Pulman observed that the defendant’s symptoms had persisted in the absence of illicit substance use. Dr Pulman considered that the defendant’s relapse into substance use and deterioration in his mental health were risk factors for the defendant committing a further serious offence. Dr Pulman found that the defendant currently posed a high risk of committing a serious offence without close monitoring and supervision under an ESO and recommended an ESO with a minimum of three years.

Report of Dr Richard Furst dated 27 January 2021

86 Dr Richard Furst, Forensic Psychiatrist, was also appointed as an expert pursuant to s 7(4) of the Act and prepared an expert report dated 27 January 2021 for the application of the 2021 ESO.

87   In the report, Dr Furst found that the defendant met the criteria for schizophrenia and substance use disorder. Dr Furst opined that the defendant posed a risk of committing a further serious offence, noting his young age, prior criminal history before the index offence, serious mental illness and his substance use disorder.

88   In considering the defendant’s risk factors, Dr Furst observed that ‘Although lack of insight into his mental illness and treatment needs has been consistently identified by clinicians over the last several years and is a relevant [dynamic risk factor], ‘lack of insight’ as a clinical construct fails to convey the deficits evident in [the defendant]. Unfortunately, he is not just insightless, but he is actively resistant with respect to treatment prescribed to him, to the point of threatening his treating psychiatrist at PEIRS in 2018 and other threats to mental health staff, both nurses and psychiatrist, whilst in custody over recent years, including over the last several months. Therefore, his deficits in relation to insight actually are so severe as [they] constitute an additional risk factor specific to his treating team.’

89Dr Furst considered that the defendant had a complex set of needs and was at a substantially elevated risk of committing a serious violent offence in the future. Dr Furst opined that the defendant would likely benefit from the more intensive level of supervision and treatment that an ESO offers. Dr Furst noted that the defendant’s low level of intellectual function, cognitive deficits, impulsivity, difficulty with emotional regulation and breaches of previous supervision/reporting requirements while on bail and parole were all features that would warrant an ESO and would make voluntary treatment or treatment pursuant to mental health legislation alone inadequate in managing the defendant’s risk of future offending in the community.

Supplementary Report of Dr Richard Furst dated 21 February 2021

90   In a supplementary report dated 21 February 2021, Dr Furst maintained his view that the defendant lacked insight into his illness, was resistant to psychiatric treatment and supervision generally and would likely disengage from all psychiatric services, refuse medication and use drugs again without an ESO.” (Footnotes omitted)

Evidence not canvassed in the agreed facts

A psychologist’s report

  1. A report by a former psychologist of the defendant, Rebecca Mallia-Blanco, dated 12 March 2025, was admitted into evidence on behalf of the defendant. It is apparent from its content that it was prepared for a hearing in the Guardianship Division of the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) concerning an application for a financial management order that was resisted by the defendant. Ms Mallia-Blanco was of the view that the defendant was capable of managing his financial affairs, submitting that “It is crucial that his achievements in self-management be recognised as a positive trajectory towards full independence.” I note that a financial management order was not made.

A report by Kelli Grabham

  1. A report, in the form of an affidavit dated 22 August 2025, by Kelli Grabham, who is a High Risk Offender Applications and Operational Governance Officer in the Extended Supervision Order Team (the ESO Team) in Blacktown, was read. Ms Grabham noted three occasions when the defendant had breached his ESO conditions and the ESO Team exercised their discretion to proceed by way of a warning rather than a criminal complaint. Those occasions were: on 16 October 2023, he consumed alcohol; on 19 October 2023 he left his accommodation contrary to his curfew, having been refused permission to do so; and on 17 February 2025, he wrote to a person in custody. Ms Grabham also commented on the proposed conditions of an ISO.

Consideration and determination

  1. As noted, the defendant submits that the Court would not be satisfied that the material before the Court, if proved, would justify the making of an ESO; that is, it would not justify a finding “to a high degree of probability” that the offender poses an unacceptable risk of committing another serious violence offence if not kept under supervision: (ss 5B(d) and 10A(b) of the Act).

  2. As noted earlier, the current ESO made by Davies J on 17 March 2021 was suspended on four occasions, comprising a total period of 537 days while the defendant was in prison. As noted in the agreed facts, his behaviour has included unprovoked death threats against a sibling, a common assault against an uncle on 12 March 2025 and against one of his NDIS service providers on 28 December 2024 and an alleged assault occasioning actual bodily harm on 29 June 2024 against a prison officer that is yet to be finalised.

  3. All of these incidents were characterised by a sudden loss of control by the defendant of his anger. The alleged assault occasioning actual bodily harm is particularly concerning. According to the police facts, the incident was captured on CCTV. The defendant is alleged to have punched the officer to the head at least 8 times with both closed fists and when the officer fell to the ground, tried to kick him, with his foot brushing the top of the officer’s head. The officer got to his feet and stumbled out of the area. The defendant attempted to follow him, but the officer was able to reach a safe area, and then collapsed and lost consciousness. It is alleged that the officer suffered a concussion, bruising and swelling to his right eye and abrasions under that eye. The defendant is presently seeking a resolution of the matter in court via diversionary orders.

  4. Although the matter is unresolved and the defendant is pleading not guilty, on the basis of the police facts and the assertion that the incident was captured on CCTV, I afford it considerable weight. The defendant was able to inflict those injuries in the closed environment of a prison, before the officer could extricate himself, and then collapse. Were the defendant to attack someone out of anger in a similar way in an isolated location in the community, where there were no witnesses, the victim lost consciousness and the attack continued, such an attack could be life-threatening. I note that the victim of the defendant’s commission of the index homicide offence was isolated in their home and that it was a relatively spontaneous attack, motivated by anger: R v Kaddour; R v Azar [2017] NSWSC 586 per Mathews AJ at [7] and [32].

  5. There are some limited signs of progress. Mr Wu, in his ESO completion and Risk Assessment Report dated 11 August 2023, noted that although the defendant remained in the high-risk range of committing further serious violent offences:

“… his total score had decreased into the next recidivism bin and therefore the reported percentages were lower compared to when he completed treatment in custody.”

  1. However, Mr Wu’s report, considered as a whole, as noted at [73]–[79] of the agreed facts above, was concerning and gave little ground for confidence that the defendant had made real progress in limiting his risk factors. To a same effect, I note the Risk Assessment Report and supplementary report by Ms Cieplucha, canvassed at [52]–[59] and [61]–[63], the Risk Management Report by Ms Iyer at [60] and [64]–[68] and the supplementary Risk Management Report by Ms Gregg canvassed at [69]–[72]. I take into account that these reports are relatively recent, although the older reports of Dr Pulman (27 January 2021) and Dr Furst (27 January 2021 and 21 February 2021) are still of considerable weight when considered in the context of those later reports.

  2. For these reasons, I was satisfied that the material before the Court would, if proved, justify the making of an ESO. I was also of the view that there was no basis for an exercise of the Court’s discretion to not make an ISO, and therefore I made an ISO.

Proposed conditions

  1. The defendant opposed some of the conditions advanced by the plaintiff and proposed variations of others, essentially submitting that any conditions to the ISO should mirror his most recent conditions of parole, which expired on 13 July 2025. Many of the conditions that he opposed were on the basis that they seek to address matters that were not linked to his offending history, particularly the index offence (the relevance submission).

6: Electronic monitoring

  1. The plaintiff proposed that the defendant be subject to electronic monitoring. The defendant made a relevance submission: that his prior offending was not tied to a particular location or type of location, such a condition adds to his experience of anxiety and is unnecessary in view of his progress to a lower level of monitoring. The plaintiff submitted that the condition was necessary in order to ensure that the defendant did not go to places of known prohibited drug supply or associate with anti-social peers.

  2. There is no reason as to why the defendant’s current level of monitoring cannot be maintained. I was of the view that the condition is necessary, at least until updated forensic reports are received and considered by the Court at a final hearing.

7-9: A schedule of movements

  1. The plaintiff proposes standard schedule conditions that the defendant produce a schedule of his proposed movements “if directed” and that he not vary from his schedule without the prior approval of a DSO or in an emergency. The defendant made a relevance submission and noted the current arrangement, which falls short of what is proposed, is satisfactory. That arrangement was described by Ms Iyer in her Risk Management Report:

“Currently [the defendant] is providing no detail on his weekly schedule, instead considering his mental health, inability to forward plan and instability of supports, he is permitted to call DSO once a day to define the activities planned for the day. Additionally, [the defendant] has also been allowed a list of pre-approved activities on his schedule that he can access by just informing Electronic Monitoring prior to departure. This level of freedom offered to [the defendant] has been strategically implemented to also assist him in learning how to self-regulate his movements.”

  1. There is no need for the defendant’s current scheduling obligations to change. The proposed conditions provide a higher level of scheduling that may be introduced to meet any variation in the defendant’s level of risk. I was satisfied that the proposed scheduling conditions have the necessary degree of flexibility in the manner in which they have been applied to date and should continue to apply to the defendant.

11: An evening curfew

  1. The proposal is that the defendant be subject to an evening curfew unless other arrangements are approved by the DSO. The defendant makes a relevance submission: his criminal offending has not been confined to evenings and therefore the condition is unnecessary. The plaintiff submitted that it was necessary to avoid the defendant engaging in drug use or transactions.

  2. I note the history of the defendant demanding alcohol from his NDIS providers late at night, referred to above at [19]. I was satisfied that without this condition there is a greater risk of the defendant not complying with the conditions concerning the use of alcohol and prohibited drugs, which are considered below.

14: Notification of visitors

  1. The plaintiff proposed that the defendant be obliged to notify the DSO of any visitor “entering or remaining” at his address. The defendant submitted that this condition is “extremely broad, overly restrictive, and difficult to comply with to the extent that it is not clear what it means to “enter and remain”. The defendant submitted as well that it is “also difficult to comply with due to the fact the defendant is in receipt of NDIS support”. The plaintiff responded that it is necessary to ensure that the defendant does not associate with anti-social persons or others he is forbidden from associating with.

  2. In view of past breaches by the defendant of non-association directions, I considered that the condition is necessary.

21: Disclosure of financial affairs

  1. The condition would require the defendant to provide any information relating to his financial affairs, including income and expenditure, if directed by a DSO. In response, the defendant made a relevance submission. The plaintiff maintained that the condition enables a DSO to detect unusual spending patterns that may prompt a check that the defendant is not gambling or using prohibited drugs.

  2. I note that some of the defendant’s minor violence offences were directed against persons who have rebuffed a request from him for a loan. As well, it makes sense that such monitoring may give rise to reasonable inquiries as to whether the defendant is gambling or purchasing prohibited drugs. I approved the proposed condition.

22-24: Alcohol and drugs

  1. The proposal was that the defendant be prohibited from the use of alcohol without prior DSO approval, the use of prohibited drugs or prescription drugs that have not been prescribed, entering any licensed premises (except for cafes and restaurants) and that he submit to drug and alcohol testing.

  2. The defendant opposed the conditions insofar as they related to alcohol. In the event that the condition was approved, the defendant proposed an addition, to the effect that a non-compliance with the drug provision not be acted upon without a DSO taking into account whether the defendant had disclosed it and what steps he has taken by way of remedying the behaviour with professional assistance.

  3. In my view, the condition is plainly necessary because it addresses significant criminogenic factors. The note, as agreed, was added.

30: Prohibition of gambling

  1. The defendant made a relevance submission that gambling is not related to his risk profile. In my view, it is necessary for the defendant to refrain from gambling in view of how he has a pattern of past behaviour of being stressed by financial pressure to the point of spontaneously attacking persons who refuse him a loan.

33-43: Monitoring of the use of electronic devices

  1. The defendant made a blanket relevance submission to all aspects of these conditions. The plaintiff responds that the conditions are necessary:

“… given his history of contacting anti-social associates including those in custody and history of making threats towards family members over text messages. It would also assist with detection of drug-seeking behaviour or drug transactions, noting the defendant’s history of problematic drug use.”

  1. I accepted the plaintiff’s submission and approve the condition.

45-47: Changes to the defendant’s appearance and identification

  1. These proposals are essentially to the effect that the defendant must seek a DSO’s prior approval for any significant change that he proposes to make to his appearance and provide a DSO with the details of any change to his identification. The defendant submitted that the conditions are unnecessary.

  2. The plaintiff submitted that the conditions are necessary to ensure that the defendant may be monitored. I accepted that submission and approved the proposed conditions.

Orders

  1. Accordingly, I made the following orders on 4 September 2025:

  1. Order pursuant to s 7(4) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (“the Act”) that:

    a.   Two qualified psychiatrists or psychologists (or any combination of such persons) be appointed to conduct separate examinations of the defendant and to furnish reports to the Supreme Court on the results of those examinations by a date to be fixed by the Court; and

    b.   The defendant is directed to attend those examinations.

  2. Order pursuant to s 10A of the Act, that the defendant be subject to an interim supervision order commencing upon the expiration of the defendant’s current extended supervision order (“the interim supervision order”).

  3. Order pursuant to s 10C(1) of the Act, that the interim supervision order be for a period of 28 days.

  4. Order pursuant to s 11 of the Act, that the defendant, for the period of the interim supervision order, comply with the conditions set out in the Schedule to these orders.

  5. Order that access to the Supreme Court’s file in respect of any document shall not be granted to a non-party without the leave of a judge of the Court and, 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.

**********

Schedule of Conditions of Supervision Azar (161 KB, pdf)

Endnotes

Decision last updated: 12 September 2025

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

  • Criminal Law

Legal Concepts

  • Criminal Liability

  • Extended Supervision Orders

  • Risk Assessment

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

3

Statutory Material Cited

1

Attorney General for New South Wales v Tillman [2007] NSWCA 119
R v Kaddour; R v Azar [2017] NSWSC 586
State of New South Wales v Azar (Final) [2021] NSWSC 216