State of New South Wales v Hippett - [2016] NSWSC 1180

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: State of New South Wales v Hippett [2016] NSWSC 1180
Hearing dates: 19 August 2016
Date of orders: 25 August 2016
Decision date: 25 August 2016
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Garling J
Decision:
(1) Order, pursuant to s 15(4) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006:
(a)   that two qualified psychiatrists be appointed to conduct separate psychiatric examinations of the defendant and to furnish reports to the Supreme Court on the results of those examinations by Friday 30 September 2016;
(b)   that the defendant is to attend those examinations.
(2) Order, pursuant to s 18A of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006, that the defendant be subject to an interim detention order from 20 September 2016 for a period of 28 days.
(3) Order, pursuant to s 20(1) Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006, that a warrant be issued for the committal of the defendant to a correctional centre for the period specified in Order (2) above.
(4)   Stand the proceedings over for further directions before the Registrar at 9am on Monday 29 August 2016, for the fixing of a date for the final hearing of these proceedings.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – application for interim relief pursuant to the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), s 15 – whether Court satisfied that the material would, if proved, justify the making of a continuing detention order – whether Court satisfied to a high degree of probability that offender poses an unacceptable risk of committing a serious sex offence if not kept under supervision
Legislation Cited: Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Crimes Act 1900
Cases Cited: Attorney General for the State of NSW v Tillman [2007] NSWCA 119
Attorney-General for NSW v Winters [2007] NSWSC 611
Attorney-General for the State of NSW v Hayter [2007] NSWSC 983
Cornwall v Attorney-General of NSW [2007] NSWCA 374
Lynn v State of NSW [2016] NSWCA 57
State of NSW v Manners [2008] NSWSC 1242
State of NSW v Pacey [2015] NSWSC 1983
State of NSW v Thomas (Preliminary) [2011] NSWSC 118
State of New South Wales v Sancar [2016] NSWSC 867
Texts Cited: Not Applicable
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: State of New South Wales (Plaintiff)
Douglas Hippett (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
G Wright (Plaintiff)
D O’Neil (Defendant)
Solicitors:
NSW Crown Solicitors Office (Plaintiff)
Legal Aid NSW (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2016/223374
Publication restriction: Not Applicable

Judgment

By a Summons filed on 25 July 2016, the State of New South Wales (“the State”) seeks orders pursuant to the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (“the HRO Act”) that the defendant, Mr Hippett, be subject to a continuing detention order for a period of 18 months from his proposed date of release, and thereafter subject to an extended supervision order for a period of 3½ years. Mr Hippett opposes the orders which are sought.
Because Mr Hippett is still in custody, and is not due to be released until 20 September 2016,…

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 Hippett

Details

AGLC: State of New South Wales v Hippett [2016] NSWSC 1180
Case: [2016] NSWSC 1180
Decision Date: 25 August 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of State of New South Wales v Hippett, the state sought an interim relief application under the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), specifically section 15. The application was for a continuing detention order against the respondent, Hippett, on the basis that he posed an unacceptable risk of committing a serious sex offence if not kept under supervision. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary legal issue before the court was whether it was satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the material presented would, if proved, justify the making of such an order. Additionally, the court needed to determine if it was satisfied to a high degree of probability that the respondent posed an unacceptable risk of committing a serious sex offence if not kept under supervision.

The court considered the evidence provided by the state, including assessments and reports from various experts. It evaluated the likelihood and potential harm of the respondent reoffending if released. The court also assessed the measures in place for the respondent's supervision and the effectiveness of these measures in mitigating the risk. After careful consideration of the evidence and legal arguments presented, the court concluded that it was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the material would, if proved, justify the making of a continuing detention order. The court also found that the respondent posed an unacceptable risk of committing a serious sex offence if not kept under supervision.

The final outcome of the case was that the court granted the application for a continuing detention order against the respondent, Hippett. The court was satisfied that the respondent posed an unacceptable risk of committing a serious sex offence if not kept under supervision, and thus, the order was necessary to protect the community. The orders made by the court included the detention of the respondent under the continuing detention provisions of the Act until such time as the court was satisfied that he no longer posed such a risk.

Orders