State of New South Wales v CD (Preliminary)

[2021] NSWSC 1396

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	State of New South Wales v CD (Preliminary) [2021] NSWSC 1396
Hearing dates:	27 October 2021
Date of orders:	01 November 2021
Decision date:	01 November 2021
Jurisdiction:	Common Law
Before:	Lonergan J
Decision:	The plaintiff to file and serve a Short Minute of Order within 24 hours reflecting the reasons for judgment.
Catchwords:	HIGH RISK OFFENDER – application for interim supervision order – defendant on parole – statutory pre-conditions conceded – conceded that an order for assessments by qualified psychiatrist/psychologist should be made – form of conditions proposed by plaintiff opposed – conditions imposed identical to parole conditions.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	State of New South Wales (Plaintiff) CD (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: K Heath (Plaintiff) A Cook (Defendant) Solicitors: Crown Solicitor’s Office (Plaintiff) Legal Aid NSW (Defendant)
File Number(s):	2021/251069
Publication restriction:	(1) Pursuant to s 7 of the Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW), the publication or disclosure of any information revealing or tending to reveal the identity of the defendant is suppressed on the grounds that (pursuant to s 8(1)(a) of the Act), the order is necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice. (2) In furtherance of the suppression order in respect of the defendant’s identity, the defendant will be referred to in the proceedings under the pseudonym “CD”.

Judgment

1. By Amended Summons filed in Court on 27 October 2021 the plaintiff seeks interim and final relief under the Crimes (High-Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) (the “Act”).

2. The interim orders sought comprise an order under s 7(4) of the Act for assessments by two qualified psychiatrists and or psychologists as well as orders under s 10A of the Act that the defendant be subject to an interim supervision order (ISO) from midnight on 5 November 2021, for a period of 28 days (s 10C(1) of the Act), and that pursuant to s 11 of the Act, the defendant comply with a suite of 58 conditions set out in the Schedule to the Amended Summons.

3. For the purposes of the preliminary hearing only, the defendant does not oppose the appointment of two experts and does not oppose an ISO for a period of 28 days commencing on 5 November 2021.

4. The defendant does oppose some of the conditions in the Schedule to the Amended Summons. He argued through his counsel, Ms Cook, that a more appropriate approach would be to have the conditions attached to any ISO reflect his present parole conditions.

5. For the reasons that follow, which have of necessity been abbreviated given the time pressures affecting the delivery of this judgment, I have concluded that an ISO should be made, but the conditions of that ISO should correlate to the 17 parole conditions to which the defendant is currently subject and has been subject since his release to parole on 14 October 2021.

6. The reasons for this approach are in summary, first, the current parole conditions directly and adequately address any risk to the community presented by the defendant. Secondly, and significantly, they have a simplicity and clarity which the constellation of conditions proposed by the plaintiff do not. Thirdly, they are not overly paternalistic or inflexibly prescriptive. Fourthly, they are able to be understood and followed and they seem to have been functioning adequately over the last two weeks. Fifthly and importantly, they do not tend to unnecessarily criminalise uncontroversial and irrelevant elements of potential behaviour by the defendant. Sixthly, they tend to facilitate the necessary pursuit of the objects of the Act, the primary object of course being protection of the community, but the secondary object of rehabilitation of the offender which in turn has a role in increasing and improving the potential safety of the community.

7. Without in any way diminishing the seriousness of the index offending I observe that the offending took place when the defendant was a poorly educated, immature 18 years old and with a young woman who was his girlfriend at the time.

8. The defendant is now 23 years old. He has had a childhood marred by significant educational disruption, instability in caregivers, trauma, domestic violence, neglect, abuse and mental health problems namely bipolar disorder and chronic PTSD.

9. Given his diagnosed mental illness and the complexity of his presentation and background, the Court will be assisted by current and comprehensive assessments by an independent psychiatrist and psychologist as to current risk, before considering the necessity or otherwise of imposition of some or all of the more invasive and pre-emptory package of conditions proposed by the plaintiff.

The evidence

10. The plaintiff read two affidavits of David Yang affirmed 1 September 2021 and 21 October 2021 respectively.

11. Exhibited to the 1 September 2021 affidavit of Mr Yang was the customary huge volume of material, here, 448 pages in length.

12. The material included documents relevant to the considerations set out in s 9(3) of the Act that I must take into account when deciding whether the test has been met to make an ISO.

13. It included the defendant’s Criminal History and Bail Report, his Inmate Profile document, and a Convictions Sentences and Appeals Report. There was a relatively recent Risk Assessment Report dated 31 March 2021 authored by a psychologist Sarah Wright which contained the opinion that the defendant presented as a well above average risk of future sexual offending and that potential offending would most likely occur in relation to a vulnerable teenage female. [1]

    1. Risk Assessment Report of Sarah Wright, Psychologist dated 31 March 2021 at pars 70 and 71

14. A Risk Management Report authored by Chantelle Hodgkinson and Kelly Grabham dated 5 May 2021 set out views on management.

15. I note both the Risk Assessment and Risk Management reports pre-dated by some months completion by the defendant of the HISOP course (High Intensity Sex Offender Program) on 29 September 2021.

16. There are documents regarding the index offending which comprised various counts of sexual intercourse with a child above the age of 14 years and under the age of 16 years between 19 April and 13 May 2017, including the remarks on sentence of Girdham J and the Statement of Agreed Facts to which I will return.

17. There was other sexual offending involving a young person in July 2016. The Agreed Facts on Sentence, Police Facts Sheet, Pre-sentence Report and transcript of remarks on sentence will be relevantly summarised at pars 32 to 35 of this judgment.

18. Counsel for the plaintiff Ms Heath emphasised that whilst not the index offending, this offending is relevant in that it indicates another incident of sexual offending in relation to a child aged 14.

19. There is material regarding one relatively recent incident of assault occasioning actual bodily harm in January 2018 which involved an altercation between the defendant and another inmate whilst in custody.

20. There is a great deal of material regarding offending by the defendant whilst he was a juvenile. The circumstances of that offending largely involved fights or altercations with other boys or persons living with him in institutions under the care of the Minister, or damage to property at such institutions.

21. Also exhibited to the affidavit of Mr Yang, and of perhaps more relevance although mostly rather outdated, is a selection of psychological and psychiatric reports. These reports confirm the defendant’s diagnosis of bipolar disorder. A number of the reports refer to the difficulty the defendant’s mother has had with managing the defendant’s mental illness and his volatile temper and impulsivity commenting on his severe fluctuating levels of distress and his engagement in high risk behaviour including promiscuity, assaults, substance use and self-harm with suicidal intent when his mood was down.

22. In a report authored by Dr Kenneth Nunn, Senior Consultant Child and Adolescent Psychiatrist dated July 2011, Dr Nunn confirmed the diagnosis of bipolar disorder and the need to manage this condition by medications namely valproate and ziprasidone, to try and help educate the defendant in ways to manage his anger responses, and to work with the family and reintegrate him back to school. Dr Nunn’s opinion was that the aggressive outbursts were associated with the trauma of the defendant’s own sexual abuse and that of his sister for which he has been accused as the perpetrator.

23. In a report dated 4 May 2012, Dr Nunn described the then current diagnosis as Bipolar Disorder Type I, as well as Chronic Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder secondary to exposure to neglect, abuse and intense interpersonal conflict, and Conduct Disorder.

24. There is a report of Claire Baker, Consultant Forensic Psychologist, dated 6 April 2018 that appears to have been obtained for tender on sentence regarding an assault charge in April 2018. Ms Baker described the defendant as a man with “a very complex history including long-standing diagnoses of PTSD, bipolar disorder and a possible diagnosis of borderline personality disorder” and that he has a long criminal and incarceration history dating back to his early teens, having spent much of his adolescent years in and out of remand with the vast majority of his offending being related to his tendency towards impulsivity and aggression. She noted that the defendant:

“…had experienced a highly disrupted caregiving all of his young life and included in that is a history of physical and sexual abuse which has reportedly occurred both while under the care of the Minister and in his home environment”.

25. A 2020 pre-release report by Ben Neville, Assistant Manager Wagga Wagga Community Corrections, sets out various matters including that the defendant’s circumstances at the time of the index offence included daily use of heroin, use of methamphetamines some weeks and cannabis regularly and that he was struggling with mental health. Mr Neville observed that the index offence was the defendant’s second conviction of a sexual nature and that both respective convictions related to under-aged victims who were reportedly partners of the defendant at the time and that the defendant related that there was some level of confusion around the age of the victim and that he was not certain whether she was over the age of 16, however the Agreed Facts of the offence seemed to contradict that statement, reporting that the victim had told him her actual age and he replied he was “okay with that” and that his ex-girlfriend was a year younger.

26. There were supplementary pre-release reports dated 9 October 2020 and 15 October 2020 which indicated that the defendant had then agreed to accept inclusion into HISOP, the custodial program directed to sexual offenders to address offending behaviour.

27. A selection of HISOP progress notes dating from 30 November 2020 to 29 September 2021 were also tendered which showed, to my reading, reasonable engagement with the program and some gains in insight and understanding, although the defendant maintained his position that he was not as bad as other sex offenders because the young persons concerned were his girlfriend(s) at the time.

The index offending (and relevant earlier sexual offending)

28. The index offending occurred in April 2017 when the defendant was 18 years old and the victim was 15 years old. He was on parole at the time having been convicted of an offence of robbery with an offensive weapon. He was also subject to bail conditions in relation to the earlier sexual offending that had occurred in 2016 when he was aged 18 and the complainant was 14 years of age.

29. The description of the index offending has been extracted from the plaintiff’s written submissions: [2]

    2. Plaintiff’s written submissions at par 77

1. The defendant met SB around the end of March 2017 when he approached her at the Parramatta Train Station and asked for her phone number. They began to text each other shortly afterwards.

2. Prior to the offending, the victim told the defendant that she was 15 years of age and a high school student. The defendant told her that he was okay with that and that his “ex-girlfriend is a year younger than you.”

3. Sexual intercourse with child between 14 and 16 (Form 1 offence, attaching to count 5): On a date between about 19 April and 22 April 2017, at about 9am, SB invited the defendant to her home at Cheltenham to have sexual intercourse. No one else was at home at the time. They went into her bedroom and there began to kiss. The defendant and SB were on the bed and the defendant started touching her vagina and then digitally penetrated her vagina as she lay on her back. The victim stated she felt pain.

4. Sexual intercourse with child between 14 and 16 (Count 2); The defendant requested that the victim sit on top of him so he could have penile vaginal intercourse with her. She said she did not know if she wanted to do this. She sat on top of the offender and he inserted his penis into her vagina causing her to feel immense pain in her vagina. She said, “[NAME REDACTED] that really hurts, it really hurts” and she said, “I feel uncomfortable”. The defendant placed the victim onto her back, got on top of her and put his penis into her vagina and she again experienced pain. The defendant told her that he was “almost there”. He continued to thrust his penis into her vagina causing her to bleed. An amount of blood went onto the defendant’s t-shirt. He removed his penis from her vagina and lay beside her and they started to watch a movie.

5. Sexual intercourse with child between 14 and 16 (Count 4): Whilst watching the movie the defendant said he wanted to cuddle. SB said that is okay and put her computer on the bedside table. After doing this she lay on her right side and the defendant cuddled her from behind during which he inserted his penis into her vagina and began thrusting. SB said, “What are you doing?” and he ejaculated inside of her vagina.

6. Sexual intercourse with children between 14 and 16 (Count 5): After a while the defendant put his penis into her anus. He did not ask SB and she said, “I want you to stop. I don’t want to do this anymore”. He stopped. Subsequently SB and the defendant went from her home to the shopping centre at Castle Towers and purchased an emergency contraceptive pill from Chemist Warehouse. She was afraid of becoming pregnant.

7. One week later, between 24 and 28 April 2017, SB, the defendant and two others met up near Parramatta Park. The defendant said “I’m going to go buy alcohol.” He bought a bottle of Little Fat Lamb, which is a form of cider or ginger beer. SB, the defendant and the other two people were drinking the alcohol.

8. Sexual intercourse with child between 14 and 16 (Form 1 offence, attaching to count 8): While sitting on the bench at the park the defendant began to digitally penetrate SB through a hole in her leggings. She asked what he was doing and the defendant replied, “What do you think I’m doing, I’m going to finger you”. SB said, “Oh okay”.

9. Sexual intercourse with child between 14 and 16 (Count 7): The defendant took his penis out of his pants, SB performed oral sex on him which was witnessed by one of those persons there present and this went on for a couple of minutes.

10. Sexual intercourse with child between 14 and 16 (Count 8): Moments later the other person present heard the defendant say to SB, “Let’s go to the toilet and have sex”. He thought he heard SB say yes. He saw the defendant and SB enter the disabled toilet together and inside the defendant and the victim lay on the floor. The defendant put his penis into SB’s vagina as she lay on her back. SB recalls the offender withdrawing his penis from her vagina, removing a condom saying it broke before throwing it on the ground. He opened the door and walked away.

11. The defendant was arrested and participated in an interview with police on 14 June 2017 during which he denied knowing SB and denied having had sexual intercourse with her.

30. Girdham J observed that each offence fell “below the middle of the range” for offences of that type and that the age difference between the defendant and the victim was less than often seen in cases of this kind. Her Honour made a finding that he showed a callous disregard for his victim and had taken little responsibility for his acts and that he showed little understanding of the legacy of regret and damage that he has left behind.

31. Girdham J observed that there were reasonable prospects of rehabilitation given his motivation to reform himself, his young age and the process of maturity that he needed to undergo, and the ongoing support he has from his brother and mother but that he needed to take full responsibility for his acts and makes good his stated motivations. He was sentenced to a period of imprisonment of 3 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 2 years and 4 months.

32. The earlier sexual offending occurred in 2016 when the defendant was 18 and the victim was 14 years old. It was the subject of agreed facts, summarised as follows: [3]

    3. Plaintiff’s written submissions at par 66

1. Supply prohibited drug: The defendant provided to AF a bong with cannabis. When doing so, he stated: “Come on, [AF]. You gotta do it. Suck my wiener. I’ll give ya a cone.”

2. Produce child abuse material: In a recording dated 29 July 2016, the defendant filmed himself rapping to his mobile phone camera, before turning the camera towards AF. He stated: “I just fucked you, you were squirtin’, you were twerking on my dick, suckin’ it.” He then filmed the complainant, who was naked, while he performed sexual acts on her including caressing her breast, licking her nipples and performing cunnilingus upon her. AF said “No, [NAME REDACTED]. No babe.”

3. Have sexual intercourse with a child 14-16 years: AF said, “Not on camera. Babe, no babe.” The defendant filmed further sexual acts including having her masturbate his penis, before later moving the camera to film himself having penile/vaginal intercourse with AF. She repeatedly placed her hand over her face and made attempts to cover her body with the blankets.

4. Have sexual intercourse with a child 14-16 years: In a further recording on 29 July 2016, the defendant and AF can be seen having penile/vaginal intercourse.

5. Supply prohibited drug: The defendant admitted to sharing methamphetamine with his friend and housemate, [HOUSEMATE’S NAME REDACTED], and his current girlfriend, ME, also aged 14 years.

33. The defendant was interviewed in relation to this offending. He initially denied having a sexual relationship with the AF. When he was presented with the video recordings, he accepted his sexual involvement with her but stated she had told him she was 16 years of age. When he was interviewed by Community Corrections he said that he recorded the offences “because AF requested the incident to be recorded”. This seems to be at odds with her attitude in the recording.

34. Whilst he was on bail, the defendant and ME exchanged sexually explicit images. He was charged with two further offences (H64841615): Use carriage service to send indecent material to a person under 16 and Possess child abuse material.

35. The defendant entered pleas of guilty to all charges and was sentenced by his Honour Magistrate Keady on 23 May 2017, who accepted that “this is not a case of a much older man exploiting the vulnerabilities of a very young woman or girl”, and that the age difference is less than many cases. His Honour was critical of the fact that the second set of offending occurred at a time when the defendant was on bail and subject to explicit bail conditions protective of the victim, and regarded his access to ME as “manipulative” and done with a consciousness that he “was doing something wrong and prohibited.”

33. His Honour concluded:

“It might be hoped that with some maturity he would understand the need in his own interests to cooperate with those who have some degree of supervision over his activities… It is obvious that he is capable of functioning adequately in the community but if that is to occur without return to the courts, an effort is required by him as much as those who might assist him.”

37. Taking into account that he had already spent 7 months in custody, his Honour ultimately imposed a sentence of imprisonment of 12 months but suspended the execution of that sentence with conditions.

The relevant legislative provisions and principles

38. The principles and statutory framework are set out relevantly in the plaintiff’s written submissions: [4]

    4. Plaintiff’s written submissions at pars 8 - 10 and 14 - 21

Statutory framework - ESOs

1.The primary object of the Act is to “provide for the extended supervision and continuing detention of high risk sex offenders and high risk violent offenders so as to ensure the safety and protection of the community”: s 3(1). Another object is to encourage high risk offenders to undertake rehabilitation: s 3(2).

2. Section 5B of the Act permits the Supreme Court to make an ESO if:

a. the offender is an “offender” who is serving (or has served) a sentence of imprisonment for a “serious offence” either in custody or under supervision in the community (see definitions of “offender” and “serious offence” in ss 4, 5 and 5A);

b. the offender is a “supervised offender” as defined by s 5I;

c. an application is made in accordance with s 5I; and

d. the Court is satisfied 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.

3. Section 5B provides the gateway to the power to make an ESO. Assuming the preconditions in s 5B are satisfied, the Court will determine if an ESO should be made in the exercise of its discretion. The safety of the community must be the paramount consideration: s 9(2). That determination will take into account the mandatory matters in s 9(3) and any other matter the Court considers relevant. The ESO may require an offender to comply with such conditions as the Court considers appropriate: s 11.

“To a high degree of probability”

4. The words “high degree of probability” in s 5B(d) impose a standard higher than the usual civil standard (balance of probabilities), but something less than the criminal standard (beyond reasonable doubt). In Cornwall v Attorney General for New South Wales [2007] NSWCA 374 at [21], the Court of Appeal observed (in relation to a former version of the Act):

“The expression ‘a high degree of probability’ indicates something ‘beyond more probably than not’; so that the existence of the risk, that is the likelihood of the offender committing a further serious sex offence, does have to be proved to a higher degree than the normal civil standard of proof, though not to the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt. On the other hand, the risk or likelihood itself does not have to be a probability to the civil standard of proof, but rather a sufficiently substantial probability to satisfy the criterion ‘likely’ as explained in TSL.”

“Unacceptable risk”

5. The term “unacceptable risk” is to be understood according to its everyday meaning, having regard to the primary purpose of the Act to ensure the safety and protection of the community: Lynn at [55], [58] per Beazley P. The evaluative task involves consideration of both the likelihood of the risk eventuating and the gravity of that risk if it eventuates: Lynn at [51].

6. As concerns the assessment of risk, Basten JA observed in Lynn:

“…The nature of the risk he posed had to be assessed by reference to past conduct, the seriousness of the possible future conduct and the period over which the risk may come to fruition. The assessment must be based on an absence of protective measures. The criterion of unacceptability will no doubt depend upon these matters, together with a comparison, to the extent that the evidence permits, of what may be described as the background level of risk to the community from violent offenders.”

7. 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: s 5D.

8. The Court may legitimately find that a person poses an unacceptable risk for the purpose of the unacceptable risk test even if the likelihood of the person committing a further serious offence is determined to be low: New South Wales v Kamm (Final) [2016] NSWSC 1 at [43]; New South Wales v Sleeman (Preliminary) [2018] NSWSC 562 at [13].

9. The impact of a CDO or ESO on an offender’s liberty is not a relevant consideration in determining whether the s 5B(d) threshold is satisfied, but the Court may take that into account in determining whether to make an ESO in the exercise of its discretion pursuant to s 9: cf. Lynn per Beazley P at [44], [56]-[57], Basten JA at [126] and Gleeson JA at [148].

Preliminary hearing

10. At the preliminary hearing stage, the Court must be satisfied that the matters alleged in the supporting documentation would, if proved, justify the making of an ESO or CDO. If so satisfied, the Court must make orders regarding the psychiatric or psychological examination of the offender: ss 7(4), 15(4). If the Court is also satisfied that the offender’s current custody or supervision will expire before the proceedings are determined, the Court may make an ISO pursuant to s 10A or an IDO pursuant to s 18A.

11. The State’s evidence should be taken at its highest: State of NSW v Manners [2008] NSWSC 1242, [8]-[9]. It is appropriate to give weight to risk avoidance at this juncture: AG for NSW v Winter [2007] NSWSC 611 at [7].

39. Section 11 of the Act provides for a discretion to direct the defendant to comply with such conditions as the Supreme Court considers appropriate, including but not limited to directions requiring the offender to do or not to do certain things set out in s 11(1) of the Act.

40. It is sometimes suggested that the list of matters set out in s 11(1) of the Act are mandatory. I do not agree with that interpretation, although it certainly sets out the type of conditions that could to be considered, and, if appropriate, imposed.

The issues between the parties

41. The area for dispute was confined to the nature and form of the conditions that should comprise the ISO.

42. The plaintiff via its counsel Ms Heath in effect submitted that the only proper containment of risk, pursuit of the objects of the Act, and provision for safety of the community was the package of conditions appended to the Amended Summons.

43. The defendant, via his counsel Ms Cook, submitted that the acknowledged risk could be managed by the carrying over into the HRO regime of the 17 conditions of parole currently in place.

44. The current parole conditions are set out in the Schedule to this judgment.

Decision

45. The statutory preconditions set out in ss 4, 5, 5A and 5I of the Act have been met.

46. I am satisfied that the concessions made by the defendant in that regard were properly made.

47. I am also satisfied to a high degree of probability, having considered the mandatory matters under s 9(3) of the Act, that the defendant poses an unacceptable risk of committing another serious offence if not kept under supervision under the order. That conclusion is reached based on the relatively low threshold that applies at this preliminary stage to the effect that the matters in the supporting documentation would, if proved, justify the making of an ESO.

48. For the reasons set out in par 6 of this judgment, I am persuaded that the current conditions of parole comprise appropriate conditions of the ISO to manage the risk presented by the defendant.

49. Psychiatric and psychological examinations should be arranged as contemplated in order 1 of the Amended Summons.

Order

50. The plaintiff is to file and serve a Short Minute of Order within 24 hours reflecting the reasons for judgment.

**********

SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS OF SUPERVISION

In these conditions:

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

“Electronic Monitoring Officer” means any officer in the Electronic and External Monitoring Group of Corrective Services NSW.

1. You must be of good behaviour.

2. You must not commit any offences.

3. You must report to a DSO at the times and places directed by the officer.

4. You must comply with all reasonable directions from a DSO about:

1. the place where you will live;

2. participating in programs, treatment, interventions or other related activities;

3. participating in employment, education, training or other related activities;

4. not undertaking specified employment, education, training, volunteer, leisure or other activities;

5. not associating with specified people;

6. not visiting or frequenting specified places or areas;

7. ceasing drug use;

8. ceasing or reducing alcohol use;

9. drug and alcohol testing;

10. monitoring your compliance with the order;

11. giving consent to third parties to provide information to the officer that is relevant to your compliance with the order.

5. You must comply with any other reasonable directions from a DSO.

6. You must permit a DSO to visit you at the place where you live at any time, and permit the officer to enter the premises when they visit you.

7. You must notify a DSO if you change your address, contact details or employment. You must do this before the change occurs if practicable, or within 7 days of the change occurring.

8. You must not leave New South Wales without permission from the Commissioner of Corrective Services NSW.

9. You must not leave Australia without permission from the Commissioner of Corrective Services NSW.

10. You must submit a schedule of proposed activities to a DSO for approval if directed to do so by the officer.

11. You must submit to electronic monitoring.

12. You must comply with all reasonable directions from a DSO or Electronic Monitoring Officer about electronic monitoring.

13. You must not remove, tamper with, damage or disable your electronic monitoring equipment.

14. You must not use a prohibited drug or substance, except those that have been prescribed to you.

15. You must, if so directed by a DSO, participate in the following intervention, CSNSW Psychology.

16. You must comply with all directions of the mental health team, including treatment and medication (and if applicable, the conditions of a Community Treatment Order).

17. You must not contact, communicate with, watch, stalk, harass or intimidate the victim/s.

18. You must not be in the company of a person under the age of 16 years unless accompanied by a responsible adult, as determined by a DSO. You also must not engage in written or electronic communication (including through social media) with any person under the age of 16, other than with those approved by your Officer.

19. You must comply with all conditions and requirements of the Child Protection Register.

Endnotes

Decision last updated: 08 November 2021