Legal Research
Cases
State of New South Wales v Paton

State of New South Wales v Paton

Case [2020] NSWSC 1707 2 December 2020

Extended Supervision Orders

Reasonable Suspicion

Search and Seizure

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 Paton [2020] NSWSC 1707
Hearing dates: 11 November 2020
Date of orders: 11 November 2020
Decision date: 02 December 2020
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Garling J
Decision:
See orders at [58]

Catchwords:
HIGH RISK OFFENDERS – Extended supervision orders – Conditions - serious sex offender – where parties have agreed that an ESO should be made – where a condition concerning search and seizure powers is in dispute – whether departmental officers should be required to inform the defendant of the basis of their ‘reasonable suspicion’

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006

Cases Cited:
Baldwin v State of New South Wales [2020] NSWCA 112
New South Wales v Ley Thomas Baker (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 483
State of New South Wales v Ali [2010] NSWSC 1045
State of New South Wales v Bugmy [2017] NSWSC 855
State of New South Wales v Burns [2014] NSWSC 1014
State of New South Wales v Grooms (Final) [2019] NSWSC 353
State of New South Wales v Paton (Preliminary) [2020] NSWSC 1178
State of New South Wales v Steven Single [2019] NSWSC 176
Wilde v the State of New South Wales [2015] NSWCA 28; (2015) 249 A Crim R 65

Texts Cited:
Not Applicable

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: State of New South Wales (P)
Craig Hunter Paton (D)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr L A Fernandez (P)
Ms E Sullivan (D)
Solicitors:
Crown Solicitors Office (P)
Legal Aid NSW (D)

File Number(s): 2020/204169
Publication restriction: Suppression orders made 11 November 2020

Judgment

The State of New South Wales (“the State”), by its Further Amended Summons dated 28 October 2020, seeks an order that Craig Paton (“the defendant”), be the subject of an Extended Supervision Order (“ESO”) for a period of two years pursuant to ss 5B and 9(1)(a) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (“the Act”).
The State further seeks an order that the ESO be subject to 50 specified conditions pursuant to s 11 of the Act. These conditions are set out in an annexure to that Further Amended Summons.
The proceedings were heard on 11 November 2020. At the conclusion of submissions, I made the orders which are set out at [58]. I indicated that I would deliver reasons in due course. These are my reasons for making the orders which were made at that time.

Legislative Provisions

Section 3 of the Act sets out the Act’s purpose, namely:

‘to provide for the extended supervision and continuing detention of high risk sex offenders and high risk violent offenders so as to ensure the safety and protection of the community [and]…to encourage high risk sex offenders and high risk violent offenders to undertake rehabilitation.

Section 5B of the Act provides that this Court may make an ESO if:

(a) the person is an offender who is serving (or who has served) a sentence of imprisonment for a serious offence either in custody or under supervision in…

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 Paton

Details

AGLC: State of New South Wales v Paton [2020] NSWSC 1707
Case: [2020] NSWSC 1707
Decision Date: 02 December 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the State of New South Wales sought an extended supervision order (ESO) against a defendant, Paton, who was deemed a serious sex offender. The dispute centred around a condition of the order that concerned search and seizure powers, specifically whether departmental officers should be required to inform the defendant of the basis of their 'reasonable suspicion' before conducting a search. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The court had to determine the legal parameters of the search and seizure condition in the context of an ESO for a serious sex offender. It was necessary to balance the rights of the defendant against the need to protect the community, particularly given the high-risk nature of the defendant's criminal history. The court needed to decide whether the condition was reasonable and proportionate, and whether there was a legal obligation for officers to disclose the basis of their suspicion before conducting a search.

The court held that the condition in question was reasonable and proportionate given the defendant's history and the potential risk to the community. It found that the condition did not infringe upon the defendant's rights in an unreasonable manner and was necessary for effective supervision and community protection. The court concluded that there was no legal requirement for officers to inform the defendant of the basis of their suspicion prior to a search, as this could potentially compromise the integrity of the investigation and the safety of the officers involved.

The court granted the extended supervision order with the disputed condition intact. Paton was subject to the conditions of the order, which included the contested search and seizure provision. The decision affirmed the balance between the rights of the defendant and the need for effective supervision of high-risk offenders.

Orders