State of New South Wales v Devaney (Second Application) (Final)

In the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales, the State of New South Wales brought a final application against John Devaney, seeking the imposition of an extended supervision order (ESO) due to his unacceptable risk of committing serious offences. The defendant, John Devaney, had a history of serious violent offending and a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia, with a lack of insight into his risk factors. The court was tasked with determining whether the risk posed by the defendant was such that an ESO was necessary, in addition to any other orders, and whether an electronic monitoring condition should be imposed. The legal issues centred on the criteria for imposing an ESO under the Crimes (Serious and Organised Crime) Act 2005, specifically whether the defendant's risk of committing serious offences warranted the imposition of an ESO, and whether electronic monitoring was appropriate.

The court examined the defendant's criminal history, which included serious violent offences, and his mental health diagnosis and associated risks. It considered the need for an ESO to supplement other orders, such as a Community Treatment Order (CTO), to effectively manage the unacceptable risk posed by the defendant. The court concluded that the defendant's risk of committing serious offences was sufficiently high to warrant the imposition of an ESO. Additionally, the court found that while a CTO alone did not adequately manage this risk, an ESO was necessary. However, the court decided not to impose the electronic monitoring condition, citing the "sunrise clause" as a reason for not requiring continuous electronic monitoring.

The Court of Criminal Appeal ultimately determined that an ESO was necessary to address the unacceptable risk posed by the defendant, given his history of serious violent offending and his mental health condition. The court found that an ESO was essential for managing the defendant's risk, and that a CTO alone was insufficient. The court imposed an ESO for a period of 18 months but did not impose the electronic monitoring condition. The final orders included the imposition of an ESO for 18 months, without the electronic monitoring condition, to manage the defendant's unacceptable risk of committing serious offences.