Legal Research
Cases
State of New South Wales v Daniel Anthony McQuilton

State of New South Wales v Daniel Anthony McQuilton

Case [2018] NSWSC 1752 15 November 2018

Serious Sex Offender

Extended Supervision Order

Parole Revocation

Interim Supervision Order

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: State of New South Wales v Daniel Anthony McQuilton [2018] NSWSC 1752
Hearing dates: 7 November 2018
Date of orders: 15 November 2018
Decision date: 15 November 2018
Before: Wilson J
Decision:
The following orders are made:
(1) Pursuant to s.7(4) Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (“the HRO Act”) two qualified psychiatrists, or psychologists, or a combination of both, as agreed between the parties, are appointed to conduct separate psychiatric or psychological 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.
(2)   The defendant is directed to attend those examinations.
(3) Pursuant to ss.10A and 10C(1) of the HRO Act the defendant is subject to an Interim Supervision Order for a period of 28 days commencing on 16 November 2018.
(4) Pursuant to s.11 of the HRO Act the defendant is directed to comply with the conditions of the Interim Supervision Order which are set out in the schedule attached to these orders.
(5)   Liberty is granted to the parties to approach the Common Law list clerk to obtain hearing dates for any application for an extension of the interim order, for the final hearing of the matter, and to fix a timetable for the filing and serving of evidence and submissions.
(6)   Access to the Court’s file in these proceedings is restricted, such that access will be permitted to a non-party only with the leave of a Judge of the Court, and with prior notice to the parties so as to allow them an opportunity to be heard in respect of the application for access.
(7)   Liberty to the parties is granted to apply to the High Risk Offenders List Judge for any orders arising from the orders made today.
Catchwords: HIGH RISK OFFENDER - serious sex offender - preliminary hearing - application for interim supervision order and for examination by court-appointed psychiatrists or psychologists - "serious sex offence" of aggravated sexual assault –extended supervision order previously made – order due to expire – question of the need for a further order - criminal history includes numerous convictions for breaches of supervision orders - poor history of compliance with supervisory conditions – previous revocation of parole - interim supervision order made together with order for examination by two psychiatrists or psychologists
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) 1999 (NSW)
Cases Cited: New South Wales v Sotheren (Preliminary) [2018] NSWSC 754
State of New South Wales v McQuilton [2014] NSWSC 11
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: State of New South Wales
Daniel Anthony McQuilton
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms D New (Plaintiff)
Mr M Johnston SC (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Crown Solicitors Office (Plaintiff)
Legal Aid (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2018/00317459
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

HER HONOUR: On 6 March 2009 the defendant, Daniel Anthony McQuilton, was sentenced to a term of 5 years and 3 months…

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 Daniel Anthony McQuilton

Details

AGLC: State of New South Wales v Daniel Anthony McQuilton [2018] NSWSC 1752
Case: [2018] NSWSC 1752
Decision Date: 15 November 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of State of New South Wales v Daniel Anthony McQuilton, the respondent, Daniel McQuilton, was the subject of a preliminary hearing in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. McQuilton is a high-risk offender who had previously been convicted of serious sex offences, including aggravated sexual assault. The matter before the court involved an application for an interim supervision order and for examination by court-appointed psychiatrists or psychologists. The state sought to have McQuilton's extended supervision order renewed as it was due to expire, and the court needed to determine whether such an order was necessary given McQuilton's criminal history and compliance record.

The legal issues the court had to address were whether the application for an interim supervision order was warranted, and if so, what conditions should be imposed. The court also needed to decide if an examination by two psychiatrists or psychologists was necessary to assess McQuilton's risk level and suitability for a continued interim supervision order. The court examined McQuilton's criminal history, which included numerous convictions for breaches of supervision orders and a poor record of compliance with supervisory conditions. Additionally, there was a previous instance of parole revocation that the court had to consider in its deliberations.

The Supreme Court found that an interim supervision order was necessary to protect the community, given McQuilton's history of non-compliance and the seriousness of his past offences. The court determined that the examination by two psychiatrists or psychologists was required to assess McQuilton's risk and suitability for such an order. Consequently, the court granted the application for an interim supervision order and ordered that McQuilton undergo examinations by two psychiatrists or psychologists. The court set out specific conditions for the interim supervision order, including restrictions on McQuilton's movements, mandatory reporting requirements, and regular check-ins with supervising officers.

Orders