State of New South Wales v DJM (Preliminary)

In the matter of the State of New South Wales and DJM, the case was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The State sought interim supervision and examination orders against the defendant under the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), on the basis that if the matters alleged in the supporting material were proved, DJM posed an unacceptable risk of committing a serious offence if not supervised. The defendant contested the application, arguing that the risk posed was not unacceptable and that the orders sought were overly restrictive. The court was required to determine whether, assuming the matters alleged in the supporting material were proved, DJM posed an unacceptable risk of committing a serious offence if not supervised and, if so, what conditions should be imposed as part of the interim supervision order.

The court considered the statutory criteria for making an interim supervision order, including the risk of reoffending and the need for supervision to prevent serious harm to the community. The court also considered the principles of proportionality and the need to balance the rights of the defendant with the need to protect the community. The court found that, assuming the matters alleged in the supporting material were proved, DJM did pose an unacceptable risk of committing a serious offence if not supervised. The court considered that the risk of reoffending was high, given DJM's history of violent offending and his failure to comply with previous supervision orders. The court also found that the proposed conditions of the interim supervision order were reasonable and proportionate to the risk posed by DJM.

Accordingly, the court granted the application for interim supervision and examination orders, with conditions including regular reporting to a supervising officer, restrictions on contact with certain individuals, and requirements to submit to drug and alcohol testing. The orders were to remain in place until the final hearing of the application for a high risk offender order. The court emphasised that the interim supervision order was not a finding of guilt and that DJM was entitled to a fair hearing of the application for a high risk offender order.