State of New South Wales v Colb (Final) - [2023] NSWSC 969

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: State of New South Wales v Colb (Final) [2023] NSWSC 969
Hearing dates: 15 August 2023
Date of orders: 15 August 2023
Decision date: 18 August 2023
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Weinstein J
Decision:
See [56]

Catchwords:
HIGH RISK OFFENDER – application for extended supervision order – dispute about scheduling conditions – conditions agreed upon – extended supervision order imposed

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006

Cases Cited:
Cornwall v Attorney-General for New South Wales [2007] NSWCA 374
State of New South Wales v Colb (Preliminary) [2023] NSWSC 471
State of New South Wales v Payton [2020] NSWSC 1707
State of NSW v Wilkinson (Preliminary) [2020] NSWSC 1813

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: State of New South Wales (plaintiff)
Grant Colb (defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
K Heath (plaintiff)
D Bhutani (defendant)
Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor’s Office (plaintiff)
Legal Aid Commission (defendant)

File Number(s): 2023/74585
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

By Amended Summons, the plaintiff State of New South Wales sought final orders for an Extended Supervision Order (ESO) against the defendant, Grant Colb pursuant to ss 5B and 9(1)(a) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (the HRO Act) for a period of three years, and for an order pursuant to s 11 of the HRO Act that Mr Colb comply with conditions as set out in the Schedule to the Amended Summons.
On 28 April 2023, I conducted a preliminary hearing in this matter pursuant to s 7(3) of the HRO Act and made orders on that day imposing an ISO with conditions: see State of New South Wales v Colb (Preliminary) [2023] NSWSC 471 (the preliminary judgment). On 26 June 2023, Yehia J renewed the ISO for a further 28 days commencing 1 July 2023. Mr Colb has been in custody since 6 July 2023 for allegedly breaching the conditions of the ISO.
On 15 August 2023, there was a final hearing after which I made the final orders sought in the Amended Summons. In the end, the only dispute was as to the drafting of the conditions requiring the defendant to submit and adhere to a schedule of movements about which the parties eventually agreed. I am grateful to both Ms Heath who appeared on behalf of the State, and Mr Bhutani on behalf of Mr Colb for the collaborative manner in which they approached these proceedings.

Orders sought

The plaintiff sought the following final orders:

“Final relief
3. An order:
a. pursuant to ss. 5B and 9(1)(a) of the Act that the defendant be subject to an extended supervision order (“the extended supervision order”) for a period of 3 years;
b. pursuant to s. 11 of the Act, directing that the defendant, for the period of the extended supervision order, comply with the conditions set out in Schedule to this summons.”

The defendant neither consented to nor opposed the making of an ESO and made no submissions as to its proposed duration. The defendant only took issue with…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading State of New South Wales v Colb (Final)

Details

AGLC: State of New South Wales v Colb (Final) [2023] NSWSC 969
Case: [2023] NSWSC 969
Decision Date: 18 August 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the State of New South Wales sought an extended supervision order for an individual named Colb, identified as a high-risk offender. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary dispute revolved around the scheduling conditions that were to be attached to the extended supervision order, although both parties eventually agreed on the specific terms.

The legal issues before the court encompassed the authority to impose an extended supervision order on a high-risk offender and the discretion to set conditions that would govern the offender's supervision post-release. The court had to determine whether the proposed conditions were appropriate and necessary to ensure public safety and prevent re-offending.

The court found that the conditions agreed upon by both parties were reasonable and tailored to manage the risks associated with Colb's potential to re-offend. The conditions included regular check-ins with a supervision officer, adherence to a curfew, and restrictions on travel and contact with certain individuals. Given the agreement on these conditions, the court imposed the extended supervision order, balancing the rights of the offender with the need to protect the public. The court's decision was grounded in the offender's history and the potential risk posed if the conditions were not adhered to.

Orders