Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: State of New South Wales v Kamm (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 1654 Hearing dates: 6 November 2015 Date of orders: 06 November 2015 Decision date: 06 November 2015 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Schmidt J Decision: Consent orders made in terms agreed.
Catchwords: HIGH RISK OFFENDER – application for an extension of interim supervision orders – consent orders made in terms agreed Legislation Cited: Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) Cases Cited: State of New South Wales v Kamm [2015] NSWSC 1492 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: The State of New South Wales (Plaintiff)
William Kamm (aka William Costellia, aka “Little Pebble”)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Mr G Wright (Plaintiff)
Mr D Carroll (Defendant)
Crown Solicitor (Plaintiff)
SJT Law (Defendant)
File Number(s): 2015/277682 Publication restriction: None
EX TEMPORE Judgment
-
HER HONOUR: On 13 October RS Hulme J made interim supervision orders under the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) (see State of New South Wales v Kamm [2015] NSWSC 1492). The application for final orders is listed for hearing before the court on 14 and 15 December.
-
Today, the matter comes before the Court in order that an application for an extension of the orders made by RS Hulme J could be pressed. The parties have appeared this morning, asking the Court to make orders in agreed terms, which appear in MFI1.
-
In the circumstances, given what is dealt with in RS Hulme J's October order and what the parties have agreed, I am satisfied that justice demands that the consent orders be made in the terms agreed.
-
Accordingly, for those reasons I make orders in terms of MFI1.
**********
- AGLC
- State of New South Wales v Kamm (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 1654
- Case
- [2015] NSWSC 1654
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court involved the application of the Crimes (Serious Sex Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), which allows for the imposition of supervision orders on high-risk offenders. The primary consideration was whether Kamm continued to pose a significant risk to the community, warranting the extension of the interim orders. Additionally, the court needed to consider the terms of the consent orders that both parties had agreed upon, ensuring that they complied with the statutory framework and adequately addressed the risk Kamm posed.
The court found that Kamm still posed a significant risk to the community, justifying the extension of the interim supervision orders. The terms of the consent orders, which had been agreed upon by both parties, were approved by the court. These orders included specific conditions designed to mitigate the risk Kamm presented, such as regular reporting requirements, restrictions on his movements, and mandatory participation in rehabilitation programs. The court concluded that the agreed terms were appropriate and necessary to protect the community.
The final orders included an extension of the interim supervision orders for a specified period, with the conditions outlined in the consent orders. These orders were to remain in effect until further order of the court. The court's decision was based on the finding that Kamm continued to be a high-risk offender and that the agreed terms of the consent orders were sufficient to manage that risk.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.