State of New South Wales v Hippett (No 2) - [2016] NSWSC 1464

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: State of New South Wales v Hippett (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 1464
Hearing dates: 10 October 2016
Date of orders: 14 October 2016
Decision date: 14 October 2016
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Schmidt J
Decision:
Order made pursuant to ss 17(1)(a), 5C(1) and 9(1)(a) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (“the Act”), that the defendant be subject to a high risk sex offender extended supervision order for a period of 3.5 years from the date of the order, and pursuant to s 11 of the Act direct that the defendant comply with the conditions set out below.

Catchwords: HIGH RISK OFFENDER – final hearing – application for extended supervision order – high risk sex offender – terms of proposed conditions – order made
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)
Cases Cited: 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 Hippett [2016] NSWSC 1180
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: The State of New South Wales (Plaintiff)
Douglas Hippett (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms G Wright (Plaintiff)
Mr D O’Neil (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor’s Office
Legal Aid (NSW)

File Number(s): 2016/223374
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

Mr Hippett was in custody serving a sentence for an offence of aggravated break and enter and commit a serious indictable offence in breach of s 112 of the Crimes Act1900 (NSW), which he had committed in March 2013 at Walgett in New South Wales, when 2016 Garling J made an interim continuing detention order against him under the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) (see State of New South Wales v Hippett [2016] NSWSC 1180).
His Honour was satisfied on the evidence then led that “the Court at a final hearing would be justified in finding, to a high degree of probability, that Mr Hippett poses an unacceptable risk of committing a serious sex offence if he is not kept under supervision or in detention” (at [85]).
The State now pursues final orders for Mr Hippett’s extended supervision once released from custody. While Mr Hippett does not consent to the making of the orders sought, he did concede at the hearing that the evidence on which the State relied was capable of satisfying the onus which fell upon it under the High Risk Offenders Act, to establish the circumstances in which the Court is empowered to make such orders. The parties were also almost entirely agreed as to the conditions which should be imposed on Mr Hippett, in the event that the Court was satisfied that orders for his extended supervision should be made.
Mr Hippett’s non-parole period expired on 20 March 2015, but he was refused release on parole. The term of his sentence expired on 20 September 2016. He is now a 21 year old Aboriginal man, with a history of serious sexual offending which explains…

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 (No 2)

Details

AGLC: State of New South Wales v Hippett (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 1464
Case: [2016] NSWSC 1464
Decision Date: 14 October 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New South Wales, the State of New South Wales sought an extended supervision order against David Hippett, classified as a high-risk sex offender. The State argued that Hippett posed a significant risk to the community and required stringent supervision beyond the standard parole period. The case involved determining the appropriateness of specific conditions proposed for Hippett's supervision order, considering both the risk he presented and his rights under the law.

The court needed to decide whether the proposed conditions for the extended supervision order were proportionate and necessary to manage the risk posed by Hippett. This included examining whether the restrictions placed on his freedom of movement, association, and other aspects of his life were justified given the risk assessment. The court also had to balance the need for public safety with Hippett's rights and freedoms under the law, ensuring that the order was not overly punitive or restrictive.

The Supreme Court found that the proposed conditions were appropriate and necessary to manage the risk that Hippett posed to the community. The court considered the detailed risk assessment provided and concluded that the restrictions were proportionate to the risk he represented. The conditions included specific limitations on his movements, associations, and employment, as well as requirements for regular reporting and monitoring. The court determined that these measures were essential to protect the public and ensure that Hippett could not reoffend.

The final orders included the granting of an extended supervision order with the specified conditions in place. These conditions were detailed in the judgment, ensuring clarity and enforceability. The court emphasised that the order was not intended to be punitive but rather a necessary measure to safeguard the community.

Orders