Legal Research
Cases
State of New South Wales v McQuilton (Final)

State of New South Wales v McQuilton (Final)

Case [2019] NSWSC 265 15 March 2019

Criminal Liability

Mens Rea & Intention

Unacceptable Risk to the Community

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: State of New South Wales v McQuilton (Final) [2019] NSWSC 265
Hearing dates: 12 February 2019
Date of orders: 15 March 2019
Decision date: 15 March 2019
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Fagan J
Decision:
(1) Pursuant to ss 5B and 9(1)(a) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 the defendant is to be under supervision in the community for a period of 18 months commencing when the defendant’s current custody expires.
(2) Pursuant to s 11 of the Act during the period of the said extended supervision order the defendant is to comply with the conditions in the schedule to these reasons (subject to revision of the numbering to accommodate deletions).

Catchwords: HIGH RISK OFFENDER – application for further extended supervision order – dependence on deviant pornography – persistent rape fantasies – diagnoses of various psychotic disorders – unacceptable risk to the community
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)
Cases Cited: State of New South Wales v BG (Final) [2019] NSWSC 200
State of New South Wales v Daniel Anthony McQuilton [2018] NSWSC 1752
State of New South Wales v McQuilton [2014] NSWSC 11
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: State of New South Wales - plaintiff
Daniel Anthony McQuilton - defendant
Representation:
Counsel:
N New - plaintiff
M Johnston SC - defendant
Solicitors:
Crown Solicitors Office of NSW
Legal Aid Commission of NSW

File Number(s): 2018/317459
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: By summons filed 17 October 2018 the plaintiff seeks an order under the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) for extended supervision of the defendant for 18 months. The defendant opposes the application. He also submits that if an extended supervision order (“ESO”) is made some of the conditions sought by the plaintiff would be unnecessarily restrictive and would inhibit his rehabilitation and should not be imposed.
The defendant is presently serving a short term of imprisonment for breach of an interim supervision order. The operation of the interim order is suspended during his custody but will resume upon his release: see s 10(1)(b) and s 10 (1A) of the Act. In determining the summons I will have to take into account the defendant’s criminal history, the chronology of his imprisonment and his conduct while on parole and under past supervision orders pursuant to the Act. Much of this has been previously set out in judgments of R A Hulme J (State of New South Wales v McQuilton [2014] NSWSC 11) and Wilson J (State of New South Wales v Daniel Anthony McQuilton [2018] NSWSC 1752). The following summary, identifying events which I consider presently material, will involve some repetition of circumstances which their Honours recounted.

The initial serious sex offence and sentence

On 31 July 2008 at age 21 the defendant committed an offence of aggravated sexual intercourse without consent, contrary to s 61J of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), against a 20-year-old female who was a…

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 (Final)

Details

AGLC: State of New South Wales v McQuilton (Final) [2019] NSWSC 265
Case: [2019] NSWSC 265
Decision Date: 15 March 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the State of New South Wales versus McQuilton, the court was presented with an application for a further extended supervision order under the Crimes (Serious Sex Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW). McQuilton, a convicted sex offender, had already been subject to a supervision order due to his high risk of reoffending. The State argued that McQuilton's dependence on deviant pornography and persistent rape fantasies, coupled with various psychotic disorder diagnoses, posed an unacceptable risk to the community if he were not subject to continued supervision.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the criteria for a further extended supervision order had been met under the Act. The court had to assess the risk McQuilton posed to the community, considering his history of offending, his current psychological state, and the potential for rehabilitation. It also needed to determine if the application met the statutory requirements and whether it was in the public interest to impose such an order.

The court found that McQuilton's ongoing dependence on deviant pornography and persistent rape fantasies, along with his diagnosed psychotic disorders, substantiated the risk he posed to the community. The court held that the State had satisfied the criteria for a further extended supervision order, as it was necessary to prevent serious harm to the community. The court granted the application, extending the supervision order for a specified period, considering McQuilton's current treatment and management plan.

Orders