Supreme Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: State of New South Wales v Paton (Preliminary) [2020] NSWSC 1178 Hearing dates: 26 August 2020 Date of orders: 1 September 2020 Decision date: 01 September 2020 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: N Adams J Decision: (1) Pursuant to s 7(4) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) ("the Act"):
(a) That two qualified psychiatrists, psychologists (or any combination of such persons) be appointed to conduct separate examinations of the defendant and to furnish reports to the Supreme Court on the results of those examinations by a date to be fixed by the Court; and
(b) That the defendant is directed to attend those examinations.
(2) Pursuant to s 10A and s 10C(1) of the Act, the defendant is subject to an interim supervision order for a period of 28 days to commence on 2 September 2020 and expire on 29 September 2020.
(4) Pursuant to s 11 of the Act, direct that for the period of the interim supervision order the defendant must comply with the conditions set out in the Schedule to this judgment.
(5) Access to the Supreme Court's file in respect of any document shall not be granted to a non-party without the leave of a Judge of the Court, and, if any application for access is made by a non-party in respect of any document, the parties are to be notified by the Registrar so as to allow them an opportunity to be heard in relation to the application for access.
Catchwords: HIGH RISK OFFENDER – preliminary hearing – application for interim supervision order– serious sex offender – choke/strangle with intent to commit indictable offence – history of detaining women for sexual gratification – relevant statutory factors – risk assessment – applicability of standard conditions
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 37(2), s 61KD, s 61J, s 86(1)
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), s 4(1), s 5, s 5B, s 5I (1), s 6(3), s 7(3), s 7(4), s 9(1)-(3), s 10A, s 10C(1), s 11
Cases Cited: State of New South Wales v Manners [2008] NSWSC 1242
Attorney General (NSW) v Hayter [2007] NSWSC 983
Cornwall v Attorney General for New South Wales [2007] NSWCA 374
State of New South Wales v Sharpe [2017] NSWSC 469
Lynn v State of New South Wales [2016] NSWCA 57
State of New South Wales v Pacey (Final) [2015] NSWSC 1983
State of New South Wales v Simcock (Final) [2016] NSWSC 1805
State of New South Wales v Loto [2018] NSWSC 1522
Wilde v the Slate of New South Wales (2015) 249 A Crim R 65; [2015] NSWCA 28
State of NSW v McQuilton (Final) [2019] NSWSC 265
State of New South Wales v Bugmy [2017] NSWSC 855
New South Wales v Ley Thomas Baker (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 483
State of New South Wales v Burns [2014] NSWSC 1014
State of New South Wales v Matthes (AKA Hackett) (Final) [2019] NSWSC 1360
Continue reading State of New South Wales v Paton (Preliminary)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- State of New South Wales v Paton (Preliminary) [2020] NSWSC 1178
- Case
- [2020] NSWSC 1178
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue was whether the respondent qualified as a high-risk offender, considering his criminal history and the risk he posed to the community. The court needed to assess the respondent's likelihood of reoffending and whether the standard conditions of supervision were suitable for him. The court also needed to consider the statutory factors outlined in the legislation, including the nature and circumstances of the offences, the respondent's history of offending, and the risk of reoffending.
The court found that the respondent qualified as a high-risk offender due to his history of sexual offences and the risk he posed to the community. The court noted that while the respondent had been compliant with Community Corrections in the past, he had reoffended while under supervision. The court found that the standard conditions of supervision were not suitable for the respondent, as they did not address his specific risk factors. The court also considered the risk assessment report, which found that the respondent had a high risk of reoffending. Based on these findings, the court granted the application for an interim supervision order.
The final orders of the court were that an interim supervision order be granted for the respondent, with specific conditions to address his risk factors. The respondent was also required to comply with regular reporting and monitoring by Community Corrections. The court emphasised the importance of close supervision and monitoring of the respondent to protect the community and prevent further offending.
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
Cooperation with supervision: While Mr Paton appears to have been compliant with Community Corrections in the past, it is noted he has reoffended while under supervision. He has only been on supervision for a very short period at the time of this report.” As part of his conclusion, Dr Parker observed: