Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: State of New South Wales v Bowdidge (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 388 Hearing dates: 8 April 2015 Decision date: 08 April 2015 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Button J Decision: (1) Pursuant to s 10C(2) of the Crimes (High Risks Offenders) Act 2006 (“the Act”), the interim supervision order made by the Court on 2 March 2015 (and stated to be effective from 17 March 2015) be renewed to take effect from 14 April 2015 and to expire at 6.00 pm on 11 May 2015.
(2) Pursuant to s 11 of the Act, the defendant be directed, for the period of interim supervision order as renewed to comply with the conditions in the Schedule to the Orders made on 2 March 2015.
(3) List the matter for further mention, and for the purpose of the State’s application to extend the interim supervision order, before the Common Law Duty Judge on 7 May 2015.Catchwords: CIVIL LAW – consent application for extension of an interim supervision order pursuant to s 10C(2) of the Act Legislation Cited: Crimes (High Risks Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), ss 10C(2), 11 Cases Cited: State of New South Wales v Bowdidge [2015] NSWSC 135 Texts Cited: Crimes (High Risks Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), ss 10C(2), 11 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: State of New South Wales (Plaintiff)
Brian Alan Bowdidge (Defendant)Representation: Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor’s Office (Plaintiff)
Legal Aid New South Wales (Defendant)
File Number(s): 2015/26479
EX TEMPORE Judgment
-
On 2 March 2015 Hall J delivered a judgment in support of the making of some of the orders contained in a summons of 23 February 2015 filed by the plaintiff. Reference should be made to that judgment, and I shall not be repetitive. It suffices to say that his Honour, among other things, imposed an interim supervision order to date from 17 March 2015 for a period of 28 days: State of New South Wales v Bowdidge [2015] NSWSC 135. That order is currently due to expire on 13 April 2015. That interim supervision order was imposed in the context of the defendant having been subject to an extended supervision order since March 2011, itself having been preceded by an interim supervision order that began in December 2010 at the end of the parole period of the defendant.
-
The joint position of the parties, reflected in the short minutes of order signed by both solicitors and helpfully provided to me this morning, is that they are content for me to make the proposed orders contained in that document. It is proposed that the interim supervision order extend to 6 PM on 11 May 2015.
-
Having read the judgment of Hall J, I have come to my own independent view that it is soundly appropriate to extend the interim supervision order. That opinion of mine is based in particular upon the fact that the defendant, who has been convicted of a number of serious sexual offences against children over a number of years, has recently, on the advice of his treating psychiatrist, terminated his anti-libidinal medication, and furthermore continues to engage in sexual fantasies about children.
-
It is for the foregoing reasons that I make the following orders by consent:
Pursuant to s 10C(2) of the Crimes (High Risks Offenders) Act 2006 (“the Act”), the interim supervision order made by the Court on 2 March 2015 (and stated to be effective from 17 March 2015) be renewed to take effect from 14 April 2015 and to expire at 6.00 pm on 11 May 2015.
Pursuant to s 11 of the Act, the defendant be directed, for the period of interim supervision order as renewed to comply with the conditions in the Schedule to the Orders made on 2 March 2015.
List the matter for further mention, and for the purpose of the State’s application to extend the interim supervision order, before the Common Law Duty Judge on 7 May 2015.
**********
- AGLC
- State of New South Wales v Bowdidge (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 388
- Case
- [2015] NSWSC 388
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to consider whether there was sufficient evidence to justify the extension of the interim supervision order. The primary legal issue was whether the state had demonstrated a real and substantial risk of serious harm to the public if the order were not extended. The court also had to assess the proportionality of the proposed measures against the individual's right to liberty and the principles of necessity and least restrictive means.
Justice Hulme examined the evidence presented by the state, which included the individual's criminal history and the potential risk they posed to the public. The court found that the state had provided sufficient evidence to support the extension of the interim supervision order. The measures proposed were deemed necessary and proportionate to mitigate the risk of serious harm, and the individual's rights were balanced against the need to protect public safety. The application was therefore granted, and the interim supervision order was extended for a specified period.
The final order was that the interim supervision order would be extended for a period of six months, with specific conditions attached to the order. These conditions were aimed at managing the individual's activities and ensuring that they did not pose a risk to the public.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.