Legal Research
Cases
State of New South Wales v Hackett (Preliminary)

State of New South Wales v Hackett (Preliminary)

Case [2022] NSWSC 417 8 April 2022

Criminal Liability

Interlocutory Orders

Unstable Mental Health

Substance Abuse

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: State of New South Wales v Hackett (Preliminary) [2022] NSWSC 417
Hearing dates: 1 April 2022
Date of orders: 8 April 2022
Decision date: 08 April 2022
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: N Adams J
Decision:
(1) Pursuant to ss 10A and 10C of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), the defendant is to be subject to an interim supervision order for a period of 28 days commencing on the expiry of the defendant’s current extended supervision order.
(2) Pursuant to s 7(4) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW):
(a) The Court appoints two qualified psychiatrists and/or registered psychologists (or any combination of two such persons) to conduct separate psychiatric and/or psychological examinations of the defendant and to furnish reports to the Court on the results of those examinations by a date to be fixed.
(b) The defendant is directed to attend those examinations.
(3) Pursuant to s 11 of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), the defendant is directed to comply with the conditions set out in the Schedule to these orders for the period of the supervision order referred to in Order 1 above.
(4) Access to the court file in respect of any document in this proceeding shall not be granted to a non-party without the leave of a judge of the Court. If any application for access is made by a non-party in respect of any document, the parties are to be notified by the Registrar, so as to allow them an opportunity to be heard in relation to the application for access.

Catchwords:
HIGH RISK OFFENDERS – Preliminary hearing – application for interim supervision order – serious sexual offending – unstable mental health – substance abuse (methamphetamine) – breaches of existing ESO – consideration of statutory criteria – electronic monitoring – more onerous conditions than existing ESO not warranted – application granted

Legislation Cited:
Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 (NSW)
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Mental Health Act 2007 (NSW)
Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Attorney General (NSW) v Hayter [2007] NSWSC 983
Cornwall v Attorney General for New South Wales [2007] NSWCA 374
Lynn v State of New South Wales [2016] NSWCA 57
State of New South Wales v Matthews AKA Hackett (Preliminary) [2019] NSWSC 770
State of New South Wales v Matthews (AKA Hackett) (Final) [2019] NSWSC 1360
State of New South Wales v Simcock (Final) [2016] NSWSC 1805
State of New South Wales v Sturgeon [2019] NSWSC 559
State of NSW v McQuilton (Final) [2019] NSWSC 265
Wilde v State of New South Wales [2015] NSWCA 28; 249 A Crim R 65

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: State of New South Wales (Plaintiff)
Kain (AKA Darren) Alexie Hackett (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms L Johnston (Plaintiff)
Ms B O’Reilly (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor’s Office (Plaintiff)
Legal Aid NSW (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2022/00041033
Publication restriction: Nil.

Judgment

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 Hackett (Preliminary)

Details

AGLC: State of New South Wales v Hackett (Preliminary) [2022] NSWSC 417
Case: [2022] NSWSC 417
Decision Date: 08 April 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this matter, the State of New South Wales sought an interim supervision order under the Crimes (Serious Sex Offenders) Act 2006 against the respondent, Hackett. The application was heard by Justice Mortimer in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The applicant sought the interim supervision order due to Hackett's history of serious sexual offending, his unstable mental health condition, and his ongoing substance abuse, particularly methamphetamine. The application arose from Hackett's breaches of an existing electronic supervision order.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the statutory criteria for the making of an interim supervision order were met in the circumstances of the case. The court considered the nature and seriousness of Hackett's previous offences, his ongoing risk of reoffending, his mental health condition, and the potential effectiveness of an interim supervision order in managing that risk. The court also evaluated whether the proposed conditions of the interim supervision order, including electronic monitoring, were necessary and appropriate given Hackett's current circumstances.

Justice Mortimer concluded that the statutory criteria for the making of an interim supervision order were met. The court found that Hackett's history of serious sexual offending, coupled with his unstable mental health and substance abuse issues, presented a significant risk of reoffending. The court was satisfied that electronic monitoring and the imposition of more onerous conditions than those in Hackett's existing electronic supervision order were appropriate measures to manage that risk. The application for an interim supervision order was therefore granted.

Justice Mortimer made an interim supervision order under the Crimes (Serious Sex Offenders) Act 2006, subject to the conditions outlined in the judgment. The order was to remain in effect until the final determination of the proceedings or the making of a final supervision order.

Orders