State of New South Wales v McQuilton - [2014] NSWSC 11

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: State of New South Wales v McQuilton [2014] NSWSC 11
Hearing dates: 20 December 2013
Decision date: 24 January 2014
Before: R A Hulme J
Decision:
Extended supervision order for 2 years 6 months with conditions

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 - high risk sex offender extended supervision order - not repeat offender - dependence on deviant pornography - persistent rape fantasies - diagnoses of various psychotic disorders - unacceptable risk to the community - supervision order for a period of 2 years 6 months
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: State of New South Wales (Plaintiff)
Daniel Anthony McQuilton (Defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
Ms G Mahony (Plaintiff)
Mr G Scragg (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Crown Solicitors
Legal Aid NSW

File Number(s): 2013/320830

Judgment

The Attorney General, on behalf of the State of New South Wales ("the plaintiff"), has applied for a high risk sex offender extended supervision order in respect of Daniel Anthony McQuilton ("the defendant") pursuant to the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) ("the Act").

There is no dispute that the defendant is what the Act calls a "high risk sex offender". Having considered the material relied upon by the plaintiff, for the reasons set out below I am satisfied to a high degree of probability that the defendant poses an unacceptable risk of committing a serious sex offence if he is not kept under supervision: s 5B(2) of the Act.

There was also no dispute that an extended supervision order should be made. There was a dispute about the duration of such an order but ultimately the parties agreed upon that. There remained a dispute about the conditions to be imposed.

The making of any extended supervision order imposes significantly upon the liberty of the subject. For this reason, and notwithstanding the concession, it is necessary to ensure that all of the statutory requirements have been met and the making of an order is justified.

The index offence

The defendant is not a repeat sex offender; in fact he has only been convicted of one "serious sex offence", an offence of aggravated sexual intercourse without consent, contrary to s 61J of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). His Honour Judge Blackmore SC sentenced him for that offence on 6 March 2009 to imprisonment for 5 years 3 months with a non-parole period of 3 years.

That offence occurred on 31 July 2008 in a car park in Albury at about 10pm. He was 21 years of age at the time and his victim, a stranger to him, was aged 20. She was returning to her car after attending a dance class when he grabbed her around the face with his fingers in her mouth. He told her he was not going to hurt her but there was a struggle and he hit her a number of times. During the course of this he put his…

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 McQuilton

Details

AGLC: State of New South Wales v McQuilton [2014] NSWSC 11
Case: [2014] NSWSC 11
Decision Date: 24 January 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved a case brought by the State of New South Wales against McQuilton. The State sought an extended supervision order under the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006. The dispute centred on whether McQuilton, despite not being a repeat offender, posed an unacceptable risk to the community due to his dependence on deviant pornography, persistent rape fantasies, and various psychotic disorders. The court had to decide if the criteria for imposing an extended supervision order were met, considering the nature of McQuilton's offences and his ongoing risk factors.

The key legal issue before the court was whether McQuilton's reliance on deviant pornography, his persistent rape fantasies, and his diagnoses of various psychotic disorders constituted sufficient grounds to impose an extended supervision order, even though he had not previously been convicted of a sexual offence. The court needed to determine if these factors indicated that McQuilton posed an unacceptable risk to the community that warranted such a measure. The assessment involved balancing the severity and nature of the potential risk against the individual's rights and the principles of proportionality and justice.

The court found that McQuilton's dependence on deviant pornography, coupled with his persistent rape fantasies and psychotic disorders, did indeed indicate that he posed an unacceptable risk to the community. Despite not having a history of sexual offences, these factors combined to create a situation where McQuilton's behaviour, if unchecked, could result in significant harm to others. The court concluded that an extended supervision order was necessary to mitigate this risk. Consequently, the court ordered an extended supervision period of 2 years and 6 months. This decision underscores the importance of preventive measures in protecting public safety while also considering the individual's circumstances and rights.

Orders