Legal Research
Cases
State of New South Wales v King

State of New South Wales v King

Case [2022] NSWSC 918 15 July 2022

Criminal Liability

Extended Supervision Order

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: State of New South Wales v King [2022] NSWSC 918
Hearing dates: 17 November 2021 & 26 April 2022
Date of orders: 15 July 2022
Decision date: 15 July 2022
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Davies J
Decision:
1. Dismiss the defendant’s notice of motion filed 23 July 2021.
2. On the oral application of the plaintiff, I vary the conditions attached to the Extended Supervision Order made by RA Hulme J on 17 February 2015.
3. Pursuant to s 11 of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), direct that the defendant, for the remaining period of the extended supervision order, comply with the conditions set out in the Schedule annexed to this judgment.
See end of judgment for Schedule of Conditions of Supervision

Catchwords:
HIGH RISK OFFENDERS – extended supervision order – application to revoke - s 13(1) Crimes (High Risk Offenders Act 2006 (NSW) – index offence of sexual intercourse with child under 10 – whether circumstances have changed sufficiently to render order unnecessary – onus on applicant – standard of proof under s 13(1B) – balance of probabilities insufficient – assessment of circumstances – psychiatric evidence – disagreement in relation to applicant’s paedophilia diagnosis – numerous breaches of ESO by applicant including consumption of illicit drugs – dynamic risk factors including substance abuse and sexual preoccupation – problematic approach taken by applicant to his sexual and other behaviour – Court satisfied to high degree of probability that applicant continues to pose unacceptable risk of committing serious sex offence – application dismissed – variation appropriate – conditions varied

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) ss 3, 5B, 5C, 5D, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 21
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Amendment Act 2017 (NSW)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) s 140

Cases Cited:
Lynn v State of New South Wales (2016) 91 NSWLR 636; [2016] NSWCA 57
R v King [2009] NSWCCA 117
State of New South Wales v Banks (Preliminary) [2021] NSWSC 1246
State of New South Wales v Boatswain [2014] NSWSC 1446
State of New South Wales v Carr [2020] NSWSC 643
State of New South Wales v Kay [2018] NSWSC 1235
State of New South Wales v King [2015] NSWSC 74
State of New South Wales v Mills [2019] NSWSC 298
State of New South Wales v Schmidt (Preliminary) [2019] NSWSC 52

Texts Cited:
Nil

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: State of New South Wales (Plaintiff)
Ronald Dean King (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
J Caldwell (Plaintiff)
J Wilcox (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor’s Office (Plaintiff)
Legal Aid NSW (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2014/313078
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

On 17 February 2015, RA Hulme J ordered that Ronald Dean King (hereinafter called “the applicant”) be subject to an extended supervision order for a period of five years: R v King [2009] NSWCCA 117. By reason of various incarcerations since the making of that order and pursuant to s 10(2) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)…

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 King

Details

AGLC: State of New South Wales v King [2022] NSWSC 918
Case: [2022] NSWSC 918
Decision Date: 15 July 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the State of New South Wales versus King, the Supreme Court of New South Wales was called upon to determine whether an extended supervision order (ESO) imposed on the respondent should be revoked or varied. The respondent, King, was subject to the ESO due to his index offence of sexual intercourse with a child under the age of ten. The application to revoke the ESO was brought by the State of New South Wales, which argued that the circumstances had changed sufficiently to render the order unnecessary. The court had to consider the onus of proof under section 13(1B) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) and determine whether the applicant had demonstrated that it was no longer necessary for the ESO to be in place.

The legal issues before the court included the standard of proof required to revoke an ESO and the assessment of the circumstances of the respondent. The applicant argued that a balance of probabilities was sufficient to demonstrate that the ESO was no longer necessary. However, the court held that the applicant must prove to a high degree of probability that the ESO is no longer necessary. The court also considered the psychiatric evidence presented, which included disagreement over the applicant’s diagnosis of paedophilia. Furthermore, the applicant had numerous breaches of the ESO, including consumption of illicit drugs, which contributed to dynamic risk factors such as substance abuse and sexual preoccupation. The court noted the problematic approach taken by the applicant to his sexual and other behaviour, which increased his risk of reoffending.

The court found that it was satisfied to a high degree of probability that the respondent continued to pose an unacceptable risk of committing a serious sexual offence. Consequently, the application to revoke the ESO was dismissed. However, the court deemed it appropriate to vary the conditions of the ESO. The court varied the conditions of the ESO to better manage the respondent’s risk factors and to provide a framework for ongoing supervision and support. The final orders of the court included the dismissal of the application to revoke the ESO and the variation of its conditions to address the respondent's ongoing risks.

Orders