State of New South Wales v GJO (Preliminary)

[2024] NSWSC 688

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

State of New South Wales v GJO (Preliminary) [2024] NSWSC 688

Hearing dates:

31 May 2024

Date of orders:

6 June 2024

Decision date:

06 June 2024

Jurisdiction:

Common Law

Before:

Campbell J

Decision:

(1) Under s 7(4) Crimes (High Risk Offenders Act) 2006 (NSW), two qualified psychiatrists or psychologists (or any combination of such persons) are appointed to conduct separate examinations of the defendant and to furnish reports to the Supreme Court of the results of those examinations within 14 days of the date of the examination.

(2)   Direct the defendant to attend the expert examinations appointed.

(3) Under s 10A of the said Act, subject to renewal under s 10C(2), the defendant is subject to an interim supervision order commencing for a period of 28 days from 7 June 2024 upon the expiration of the extended supervision order imposed by Beech-Jones J made on 9 October 2020.

(4)   Under s 11 of the said Act, direct the defendant to comply with the conditions set out in Schedule A to the summons filed on 5 April 2024 for the duration of Order 3 and any renewal thereof.

Catchwords:

HIGH RISK OFFENDERS – interim supervision orders – unacceptable risk of committing a serious offence – relevance of conditions to risk – serial rapist – third application for an extended supervision order – further offending while on second extended supervision order of this court – orders granted

HIGH RISK OFFENDERS – extended supervision orders – preliminary hearing – appointment of psychiatrists or psychologists – test for interim supervision order

Legislation Cited:

Courts Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW), s 10

Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 (NSW), s 160A

Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), ss 5, 5B, 5H, 6, 9, 9D, 7, 10A, 10C

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 9

Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 61J, 61K, 494

Cases Cited:

R v [GJO] [2000] NSWSC 716

Regina v [GJO] [2002] NSWCCA 286

State of New South Wales v GJO (Final) [2020] NSWSC 1412

State of New South Wales v [GJO] [2017] NSWSC 254

State of New South Wales v [GJO] [2018] NSWSC 1235

Category:

Procedural rulings

Parties:

State of New South Wales (Plaintiff)
GJO (Defendant)

Representation:

Counsel:
D New (Plaintiff)
Self-represented (Defendant)

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor’s Office (Plaintiff)

File Number(s):

2024/00131008

JUDGMENT

1. By summons filed on 5 April 2024 the State of New South Wales (“State”) applies for an extended supervision order (“ESO”) against the defendant, who will be referred to for the purpose of this judgment as “GJO” pursuant to an interim order under s 10 of the Courts Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW) made on Friday 31 May 2024. The State’s application is brought under ss 5B, 5H and 9 Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW). Unless otherwise specified all references to the legislation in this judgment are references to that Act.

2. The hearing before me on 31 May 2024 was a preliminary hearing conducted under s 7(3). At the preliminary hearing, the State sought orders under s 7(4) for the appointment of two appropriately qualified experts to conduct separate psychiatric or psychological examinations of GJO, to furnish reports to the Court of the results of those examinations and directing GJO to attend for examination. Moreover, the State seeks an interim supervision order (“ISO”) under s 10A for a period of 28 days under s 10C(1)(a) from the expiration of GJO’s current supervision.

3. The Court’s power to make a s 7(4) order turns upon whether I am satisfied that the matters alleged in the State’s supporting documentation would, if proved at the final hearing, justify the making of an ESO. If that condition is established, I am bound to make the order. Section 10A confers a discretion on the Court to make an ISO if, in these proceedings for an ESO, two conditions are satisfied. The first condition is that GJO’s current custody or supervision will expire before these proceedings are finally determined. There is no question that this condition is satisfied as GJO is currently subject to a second ESO which expires on 7 June 2024. He is also currently serving in the community on parole a sentence for an “offence of a sexual nature” within the meaning of s 5(2)(a), which does not expire until 6 July 2024. However, as Ms New of Counsel for the State pointed out in her written submissions, under s 160A Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 (NSW) GJO’s obligations under the statutory parole order to which he is currently subject are suspended while he is under an ESO.

4. The second condition which the State is required to satisfy to enliven my discretion under s 10A is that “the matters alleged in the supporting documentation would, if proved (at the final hearing), justify the making of an ESO”. The reference to “supporting documentation” is to the requirements of s 6. An application for an ESO must be accompanied by documentation that addresses each of the mandatory considerations referred to in s 9(3) including a risk assessment report (“RAR”) by a qualified psychiatrist, registered psychologist or registered medical practitioner. The relevant risk to be assessed is the likelihood of GJO committing a serious offence. In his case the relevant risk is really confined to the likelihood of the commission of a serious sex offence as defined in s 5. I record that the documentation attached to the affidavits of Johanna Fischer, solicitor, affirmed on 5 April and 9 May 2024 comply with the requirements of s 6. The relevant RAR is by Samuel Ardasinski dated 18 October 2023 (“Ardasinski RAR”), a forensic psychologist by profession employed by the Department of Communities and Justice as a senior psychologist within the Serious Offenders Assessment Unit. This is Mr Ardasinski’s third report concerning GJO.

5. GJO appeared before me without legal representation. He stated that he expected to be in a position to secure representation for a final hearing should I be persuaded to make the interim orders sought by the State. He also made it clear that he did not oppose the interim orders sought and accepted the conditions proposed as being appropriate.

6. I have come to the view that I am required to make the s 7(4) orders, and, in the proper exercise of my discretion, the ISO sought under s 10A should be made. As GJO was not represented before me, I have had regard to his consent to the making of the orders, but I have afforded it little weight. Given his lack of representation I will explain myself at somewhat greater length than might otherwise have been required.

The statutory conditions

7. As a starting point, the s 10A statutory test of whether the matters alleged, if proved, would justify the making of an ESO, in my judgment, is akin to a prima facie case test. That is to say, the matters alleged in the supporting documentation are to be taken at their highest, countervailing considerations are put to one side, and the question then is whether those matters, if proved at the final hearing, would justify the making of the ESO. In my view, those matters would justify the making of an ESO if upon my review of them I am satisfied that they are capable of satisfying the judicial mind that the State will have proved its case, bearing in mind the high statutory standard of proof imposed by s 5B(d) of satisfaction to a high degree of probability that GJO poses an unacceptable risk of committing another serious sex offence if not kept under supervision under an ESO. It is not relevant that I should ask myself whether I would be so satisfied. What the statute requires is the application of a legal test not a degree of persuasion as a matter of fact. Viewed this way, there is nothing hypothetical about the s 10A test.

8. As Ms New put it in her written submissions, there is no real question about the “gateway considerations” in paragraphs 5B(a) to 5B(c). GJO is over the age of 18 years, in fact he is now aged 73 years, and he has served a sentence of imprisonment for a serious sex offence, a matter to which I will return directly (s 5B(a)). As I have already remarked, he is a supervised offender being under an existing ESO, and also serving on parole a sentence of imprisonment for an offence of a sexual nature (s 5B(b)). The application, having been lodged on 5 April 2024, was made within the last nine months of his current supervision (ss 5B(c), 6(1)). I will return to the s 5B(d) question of unacceptable risk later in these reasons.

Serious sex offending (s 9(3)(h1)) – the index offending

9. This is the third application made by the State for an ESO against GJO. The first application was heard and determined by Harrison J (as the Chief Judge at Common Law then was) on 17 March 2017: State of New South Wales v [GJO] [2017] NSWSC 254. His Honour made an ESO for a period of 3 years. The second application was finally determined by Beech-Jones J (as the former Chief Judge at Common Law then was) on 9 October 2020: State of New South Wales v GJO (Final) [2020] NSWSC 1412. There have been other decisions of judges of this Court in relation to matters arising under the Act including the preliminary judgments in each of the previous matters (Schmidt J and Rothman J respectively) and the judgment of Wilson J varying the conditions of the first ESO in State of New South Wales v [GJO] [2018] NSWSC 1235. It is unnecessary for present purposes for me to analyse any of their Honours’ judgments.

10. GJO committed a series of eight serious sex offences between 23 December 1995 and 24 December 1996. As Carruthers AJ, who gave judgment for the Court of Criminal Appeal on GJO’s severity appeal in [2002] NSWCCA 286 (Sheller JA and Dowd J agreeing) (“CCA Judgment”), observed (at [9]), all of the offences were committed against women at night in the suburbs of the lower north shore of Sydney. While there were significant differences in the detail of the commission of each offences, GJO’s modus operandi in each offence had the following common features (at [12]):

“• The victim was threatened by the applicant holding a knife against the victim's throat. In some cases, actual injury was inflicted by the knife.

• Money and/or credit cards and/or driver's licence were demanded.

• A rag was forced into the victim's mouth.

• The victim was immobilised in some fashion.

• The victim's address was ascertained, and she was threatened with violence if she reported the matter to the police.

• Penetration by the applicant's penis or finger.

• Fondling of the victim's breasts.”

To these common features could be added, from my review of the material, that in each case there was a degree of stalking of each victim who were otherwise more or less chosen at random as the opportunity presented itself to GJO.

11. Other evidence led at the proceedings on sentence included the results of the police investigation into the identity of who they correctly took to be a serial rapist. The applicant was seen to engage in other conduct consistent with stalking behaviour on occasions which did not result in the commission of a serious sex offence. But this evidence is capable of demonstrating at the final hearing that the eight offences dealt with on the proceedings on sentence by R S Hulme J on 26 July 2000 ([2000] NSWSC 716, “Sentencing Judgment”) were committed as part of an ongoing course of predatory sexual conduct by GJO.

12. After a late indication of an intention to plead guilty to all matters (he had previously admitted one to police), GJO was arraigned for sentencing purposes on an indictment, containing four counts with four Form 1 offences to be taken into account when he was sentenced for the third count. The chronology is as follows:

1. First count, 23 December 1995;

2. Second count, 28 March 1996;

3. First offence on the Form 1, 6 May 1996;

4. Second offence on the Form 1, 15 May 1996 (contrary to s 61K Crimes Act 1900 (NSW));

5. Third offence listed on the Form 1, 30 May 1996 (contrary to s 61K Crimes Act);

6. Third Count, 17 September 1996;

7. Fourth Count, 22 October 1996;

8. Fourth offence listed on the Form 1, 24 December 1996

Each offence was one of sexual intercourse without consent in circumstances of aggravation, namely, that GJO was armed with a knife contrary to s 61J Crimes Act, with the exception of the offences on the Form 1 contrary to s 61K Crimes Act, which were offences of threatening to inflict actual bodily harm by means of an offensive weapon with intent to have sexual intercourse. All offences (including the Form 1 offences) carry a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 20 years.

13. The eight female victims were:

1. three teenage girls aged 16, 17 and 18;

2. four young adults aged 22, 23, 24 and 25; and

3. one adult aged 39 years.

It was accepted that the most serious of the offences committed by GJO in this series was the third count on the indictment on 17 September 1996. The victim was the young adult aged 23 who was on her way to work when GJO attacked her.

14. R S Hulme J imposed a separate sentence in respect of each count on the indictment, rather than an aggregate sentence, resulting in a total effective sentence of 20 years imprisonment having a non-parole period of 15 years with an additional term of 5 years. I interpolate that GJO was not released to parole when first legally eligible. He was afforded day release from about April 2014 and was released to his parole on 20 February 2015, having served 18 years since he was taken into custody on 18 February 1997 when he was arrested.

15. GJO gave evidence on the proceedings on sentence, but his explanations for his offending were largely rejected by R S Hulme J. His Honour accepted the evidence of the psychiatrist called on behalf of the Crown, Dr Wong, that “there are sufficient negative prognostic pointers in the accused’s case to indicate very significant risks of re-offending” (Sentencing Judgment at [88]). His Honour was of the view “that without something ingrained and deviant, the offences would not have been committed” (Sentencing Judgment at [91]).

16. The Court of Criminal Appeal accepted that R S Hulme J had made some errors of principle, but on re-sentence, were of the view that no lesser sentence was warranted. Despite an error of principle in relation to the consideration of special circumstances, their Honours were of the view that no alteration of the non-parole period was called for. For present purpose, it is important to note that Carruthers AJ did not accept the sentencing judge’s assessment (Sentencing Judgment at [95]) of objective seriousness that all of GJO’s “offences fall well short of a “worst case” under ss 61J or 61K”. Carruthers AJ said in the CCA Judgment (at [67]):

“With respect to his Honour, who gave close consideration to the somewhat detailed evidence that was before him, this expression of opinion understates the degree of criminality involved in the majority of the offences. Therefore, I do not consider that the applicant is entitled (as his counsel seeks to do) to call in aid this expression of opinion by his Honour in evaluating the excessiveness or otherwise of the overall sentences.”

17. Finally, I record the views of R S Hulme J as follows (Sentencing Judgment at [58]-[59]):

“I have expressed my views on some of the evidence given by [GJO] but I should say more. … I formed the firm view that he was inclined to down-play his premeditation and criminality. He provided no satisfactory explanation for his conduct. He said that after the first offence, he was disgusted with himself, ashamed and scared by what he had done. He said that on two occasions he was physically sick afterwards. He agreed or said that on some occasions he was out of control. Yet, as is both clear and admitted by him, on a number of occasions he deliberately sought to place himself in circumstances where he could commit similar offences.

I find it impossible to escape the conclusion that, during the period covered by his offences he was either not significantly remorseful for what he had done, or, was so driven by his instincts or other desires that any remorse was overcome. The argument that at the time of his offences, society needed protection from him is compelling.”

Other criminal history (s9(3)(h))

18. The facts alleged in the supporting documentation are capable of proving that GJO has committed other offences which appear to be of a sexual nature, one way or another. He was convicted on 21 January 1971 of assaulting a female contrary to s 494 Crimes Act. On 1 October 1975 he was convicted of indecent assault. Both of these matters were dealt with by non-custodial sentences. Each had a sexual element and were somewhat similar involving the touching of the victim above the hemline of her skirt or dress on her inner thigh or over the front of her underpants.

19. There are two convictions for “peep and pry” offences on 5 October 1983 and 19 May 1987, respectively. In the first such offence GJO apparently caught sight of a woman in lingerie inside her home. He pulled his car over, alighted and masturbated while peering at the woman through the window of her home. The second offence in 1987 was for similar conduct, although he denied a sexual motive when interviewed by Mr Patrick Sheehan, forensic psychologist and court appointed expert for the purpose of the second ESO application. He also received non-custodial sentences for these matters.

20. There are matters alleged in the supporting documentation of GJO offending since the first ESO was imposed by Harrison J. These matters are capable of supporting an inference that he remains subject to strong sexual urges that he is prepared to act on at times even when the object of his sexual attraction does not consent. The first post-ESO offence occurred on 17 April 2018 when he was charged with the common assault of a 16-year-old female. The young woman was casually known to him as they had formerly resided in the same apartment complex. During an interaction at her place of work when GJO had difficulty operating a machine she assisted him, and he kissed on the cheek. In State of New South Wales v [GJO] [2018] NSWSC 1235 (at [25]) Wilson J said viewing the CCTV footage it was apparent from the complainant’s body language that she neither wanted nor enjoyed the attention. Knowing of GJO’s criminal history she was both disgusted and frightened by the interaction. He was sentenced to a s 9 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) bond of 15 months duration.

21. Approximately three days later, his departmental supervising officer (“DSO”), who was conducting a random curfew check found that GJO was in breach of the condition of his ESO requiring that he disclose the formation of an intimate relationship to his DSO. It is unnecessary for present purposes to go into all the details, but he had formed a relationship with a sex worker which was required to be disclosed to enable the DSO to decide whether information about his criminal history should be provided to that person. Of perhaps more concern were the, admittedly ineffective, steps he took upon the occasion of the DSO’s check in the attempt to cover-up the presence of the woman within his residence. He was sentenced in the Local Court to a fixed term of imprisonment of four months duration, upheld by Bennett SC DCJ on a severity appeal to the District Court.

22. Each of these 2018 offences was committed within about a month of the expiration of the electronic monitoring condition of his ESO, which of itself may be significant. Wilson J reimposed the condition on 9 August 2018.

23. Perhaps capable of being viewed most seriously is offending occurring on 2 January 2022 while GJO was on the second ESO imposed by Beech-Jones J. He was at that time on electronic monitoring, but the limited condition then imposed was due to expire within a few weeks. The offending, for which he was arrested on 7 January 2022, is capable of being of significant concern because aspects of it have parallels with his preparatory conduct for his serial, serious sex offending in the mid-1990s. In short, he appears to have formed a strong sexual attraction to a 20 year old female, whom he happened upon in a store in the CBD. She was unknown to him. He stalked her for a period of about 2 hours as she shopped in various outlets in the CBD. He followed her home and gained access to her secure apartment complex by “tailgating” her into the building, by which means he also entered the lift with the complainant. As he exited the lift he placed his right hand under the complainant’s dress, placing it over her underwear and touching her genitalia. She took evasive action, screamed and managed to gain entry to her apartment without GJO. She was significantly traumatised by these events. CCTV footage and GJO’s electronic monitoring record implicated him in the offence. He was convicted in the Local Court and sentenced to a prison term of 2 years duration. On a Crown appeal to the District Court, Wass SC DCJ re-sentenced GJO to an aggregate term of 2 years and 6 months duration with a non-parole period of 1 year and 8 months for the offences of stalking and intimidating and sexually touching without consent. The limited electronic monitoring condition was extended by Bellew J, by consent, on 1 November 2022. As I have said, GJO was released on a statutory parole order on 6 September 2023 and his head sentence expires on 6 July 2024.

Risk assessment report – s 9(3)(c) and (d)

24. In the Ardasinski RAR, Mr Ardasinski assessed GJO as posing a high risk of recidivism for crimes of a sexual nature generally. Contrary to the opinions of the Court appointed experts who reported for the second ESO, Mr Ardasinski was “not convinced that [GJO] meets the diagnostic criteria for any form of paraphilia” (at [27]).

25. Mr Ardasinski administered and applied the actuarial and professional judgment tools of STATIC-99R, STATIC-2002R and STABLE 2007. The blended results put GJO in the highest risk category (Ardasinski RAR at [47]). Mr Ardasinski also administered an actuarial tool referred to as the structured assessment or protective factors against sexual offending (“SAPROF-SO”). These results suggested that GJO had a moderate loading of protective factors which would reduce the risk. These factors included his self-image as helpful, determined and goal directed. Moreover, his increasing age is a factor.

26. While, as I have said, Mr Ardasinski was of the view that GJO falls in the high risk category for sexual offending generally having regard to the static, unchangeable risk factors mainly represented by his criminal history, he was of the view that he fell in the moderate risk category when one focused on the dynamic risk factors only. He regarded him as having a moderate level of protective factors (Ardasinski RAR at [67]). Mr Ardasinski questioned whether GJO’s offender profile was such that he would be considered eligible for a child protection prohibition order notwithstanding that some of his past victims were over the age of 18. Such an order in any event would provide a very low level of community protection compared to an ESO.

Management report – s 9(3)(d1)

27. The State’s supporting documentation includes a risk management report dated 13 November 2023 prepared by Ms Louise Robinson, a Senior Community Corrections officer and counter-signed by her superior, Ms Jessie Slattery-McDonald of the ESO Team. Ms Robinson’s assessment is that GJO’s response to community supervision has remained generally positive, but he has been less than transparent with supervising staff in relation to his intimate relationships and sexual activity. While Ms Robinson states that the comprehensive management plan set out in the report, covering in substance the conditions to which she has previously been subject, is necessary to effectively manage GJO’s risk, effective risk management “will be partially contingent upon [GJO’s] willingness to remain transparent and meaningfully engaged in the supervision process going forward”. This conclusion was consistent with the opinion expressed in the ESO Completion Report dated 26 January 2022 (Exhibit JF-1, Tab 15).

Rehabilitation programs s 9(3)(e) and (e1)

28. It is not necessary to refer to previous rehabilitation programs undertaken while GJO was in custody or during the currency of previous orders. Prior to his arrest for the 2022 offending, GJO was attending regular sessions with the forensic psychology service and a community-based psychologist. The latter to address depression of which he complained. Until his 2022 offending, it was the opinion of the experienced forensic psychologist responsible for GJO’s case that he was making progress towards real change in the areas of concern, and he had demonstrated a general improvement. However, it was also stated that “[GJO] has further demonstrated an inability to moderate his own risk in the context of rejection related to relationships” and that the risk management strategies in place as conditions of the ESO “did not prove a deterrent to [GJO]” in his re-offending (ESO Completion Report at Exhibit JF-1, Tab 15).

Other options s 9(e1)

29. Given the ongoing pattern of re-offending, no other options are proposed which are likely to reduce the risk of GJO re-offending over time. As I have said, registration and orders under child protection legislation are unlikely to be effective, according to Mr Ardasinski, and in any event do not cover the whole of the risk that GJO has demonstrated by his ongoing offending (s 9(3)(g)).

Compliance issues s 9(e2) and (f)

30. While GJO seemed to comply with the terms of his parole, when released from the sentence for the index offending, and his current parole, these were largely superseded on one hand, by the applicable ISO, and on the other the ESO. While there appeared to be many positive aspects to his compliance with the statutory regime, it has been far from perfect as the pattern of re-offending demonstrates. However, the supporting documentation demonstrates that GJO he has not committed a serious offence for the best part of three decades.

Criminal history and views of the sentencing courts 9(3)(h) and (h1)

31. I have dealt with these matters above.

Other information s 9(3)(i)

32. The supporting documentation includes the opinions of the court appointed experts for the previous ESOs. These remain apposite, although, at the final hearing up-to-date reports will, of course, be available. Mr Sheehan was of the view that GJO had a history of serious sexual deviance and met the diagnostic criteria for paraphilia (in contradistinction to the opinion of Mr Ardasinski referred to at [24] above). He observed that GJO’s deviant interest has been in non-consenting sexual interactions. He also considered while there was no evidence of a major mental illness, GJO seemed to suffer a mood disorder or adjustment disorder. Mr Sheehan was of the view that GJO’s risk of committing a sex offence was in the mid-range, being medium or moderate. He thought advancing age would make it increasingly unlikely that the risk of re-offending extended to serious sex offences.

33. In his report of 25 August 2022, Dr Adam Martin, forensic psychiatrist, expressed the opinion that the index sexual offending had a “sadistic characteristic” and met the “primary significant psychiatric diagnosis [of] sexual sadism” in accordance with the DSM-5 criteria. This is a form of paraphilia. Dr Martin opined that the total offending history up until that time provided “evidence of extreme sexual dysregulation”. He too regarded increasing GJO’s age as protective, but as at the date of his assessment he did not regard GJO’s “paraphilic tendencies [as] no longer relevant to ongoing risk”.

Unacceptable risk

34. In his 2020 judgment, Beech-Jones J defined the unacceptable risk posed by GJO in the following terms (at [75]-[76]):

“I accept that the passage of time, the defendant’s age, his conduct in custody and under supervision are all matters that could be said to reduce the risk of his committing another sexual offence, including a serious sexual offence, if he was not kept under supervision under an ESO. Nevertheless, I am still satisfied to a high degree of probability that the defendant poses an unacceptable risk of that occurring.

Through 1996 the defendant was a serial rapist who terrorised the community. Despite this, counsel for the defendant submitted that it was “not likely” that he would ever repeat that type of offending. That may be so, but a risk of repetition of that type of offending does not have to be very high at all to be nevertheless unacceptable. As a practical matter, absent very compelling circumstances, someone who engages in that behaviour will present an ongoing risk of further serious sex offending of that kind, or at least serious sexual offending of some kind, into the future while they are still physically healthy.”

35. Having reviewed the facts alleged in the supporting documentation, as set out above, I am of the opinion that those matters, if proved at the final hearing, would justify the same finding being made to a high degree of probability about GJO’s current risk being unacceptable and would justify the exercise of the s 9 discretion in favour of making a further ESO. Given the nature of the test to be applied at this stage, it is not appropriate for me to weigh and assess whether the positive aspects, which have been referred to indicate that GJO’s risk is reducing to an extent where an order would not be justified. Doubtless these considerations will be weighted and assessed at the final hearing. I will make the ISO sought.

Conditions

36. With one exception the conditions proposed are the same as those to which GJO is currently subject. The one additional condition proposed is to repose a power in the DSO to require the provision of a Schedule of Movements. GJO does not oppose the continuation of his current conditions for present purposes and informed me that he had been subject to “scheduling” in the past. He does not oppose that condition. It seems to me that the current conditions are necessary to manage the risk which the supporting documentation suggests still exists. I am also of the view that the scheduling condition is an appropriate condition given the circumstances of the offending of the 5 January 2022. Indeed, it may be that scheduling would have operated as a significant restraint upon GJO’s ability to stalk the victim for some two hours in and about the CBD shopping district and follow her home. His departure from his schedule of movements would have been obvious to those monitoring him electronically. More generally, electronic monitoring and scheduling are complementary; each is more protective of the community when the other is also in force. I will make the orders sought.

Orders

1. Under s 7(4) Crimes (High Risk Offenders Act) 2006 (NSW), two qualified psychiatrists or psychologists (or any combination of such persons) are appointed to conduct separate examinations of the defendant and to furnish reports to the Supreme Court of the results of those examinations within 14 days of the date of the examination.

2. Direct the defendant to attend the expert examinations appointed.

3. Under s 10A of the said Act, subject to renewal under s 10C(2), the defendant is subject to an interim supervision order for a period of 28 days commencing from 7 June 2024 upon the expiry of the extended supervision order imposed by Beech-Jones J made on 9 October 2020.

4. Under s 11 of the said Act, direct the defendant to comply with the conditions set out in Schedule A to the summons filed on 5 April 2024 for the duration of Order 3 and any renewal thereof.

**********

Decision last updated: 06 June 2024