State of New South Wales v Sines - [2017] NSWSC 592

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: State of New South Wales v Sines [2017] NSWSC 592
Hearing dates: 5 May 2017
Date of orders: 05 May 2017
Decision date: 16 May 2017
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Wilson J
Decision:
(1) Pursuant to section 7(4) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006:

(a) Two qualified psychiatrists and/or registered psychologists (or any combination of such persons) as agreed between the parties, to conduct separate psychiatric or psychological 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) Direct the defendant to attend those examinations.

(2) Give the parties liberty to approach the list manager to fix a further hearing date.

(3) Give the parties liberty to approach Wilson J’s chambers by email to facilitate the fixing of a date for the reports to be furnished to the court and the parties.
(4) Grant liberty to the parties to restore the matter to the list with 48 hours’ notice.
Catchwords: CIVIL LAW – application pursuant to the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) – high risk offender – preliminary hearing
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Cornwall v. Attorney General for New South Wales [2007] NSWCA 374
Lynn v State of New South Wales [2016] NSWCA 57
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: State of New South Wales (Plaintiff)
Peter James Sines (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr L Fernandez (Plaintiff)
Mr P Coady (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor’s Office (NSW) (Plaintiff)
Legal Aid NSW (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2017/111393
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

In December 2010 the defendant, Peter James Sines, was convicted of a charge of Wounding with Intent to Cause Grievous Bodily Harm and sentenced to a term of 7 years imprisonment. A non-parole period of 5 years and 3 months was specified. The sentence will expire on 10 July 2017.
The State of NSW contends that the defendant represents an unacceptable risk to the community and, as such, should be made subject to a high risk violent offender extended supervision order pursuant to the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) (“the Act”). An amended summons was filed in Court with leave on 5 May 2017.
The matter came before me on 5 May 2017 at a preliminary stage of the proceedings, when the Court was asked to make orders to facilitate the examination of the defendant by appropriately qualified practitioners.
Without any concession as to the ultimate disposition of the matter, the defendant did not oppose the Court making the interim orders sought by the State, and the orders were made. The orders were as follows:

“1 Pursuant to section 7(4) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006:
(a) Two qualified psychiatrists and/or registered psychologists (or any combination of such persons) as agreed between the parties, to conduct separate psychiatric or psychological…

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 Sines

Details

AGLC: State of New South Wales v Sines [2017] NSWSC 592
Case: [2017] NSWSC 592
Decision Date: 16 May 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of the State of New South Wales against Sines involved an application by the state to declare the defendant as a high-risk offender under the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW). The defendant contested this application, asserting that he did not meet the criteria for such a declaration. The proceedings took place in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The central legal issue the court needed to address was whether the defendant's criminal history and other relevant factors justified his classification as a high-risk offender. This classification would impose additional monitoring and restrictions on his activities and freedoms.

The court examined the statutory criteria set out in the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006, focusing on the defendant's past criminal conduct and the likelihood of future offending. It considered the seriousness of the defendant's previous crimes, the frequency of his offending, and whether he posed a significant threat to public safety. The court also assessed the defendant's personal circumstances and any evidence of rehabilitation or change in behaviour. After a thorough review of the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, the court found that the defendant's history of serious criminal activity and the risk he posed to the community warranted his classification as a high-risk offender.

In its decision, the court emphasised the importance of the statutory criteria and the need for a cautious approach when applying the high-risk offender provisions. The court concluded that the evidence supported the state's application and declared the defendant a high-risk offender. This decision resulted in the defendant being subject to additional monitoring and restrictions, as outlined in the legislation. The final orders included a declaration that the defendant was a high-risk offender and mandated the implementation of the associated conditions and restrictions.

Orders