State of NSW v Hayter

In the case of State of New South Wales v Hayter, the respondent, a serious sex offender, sought to challenge the duration of an extended supervision order imposed by the Supreme Court. The matter was heard and determined by the Court of Appeal, comprising of the Chief Justice, Rares, and the Justices, Hamill and Lee. The dispute centred around the appropriate length of an extended supervision order, with no opposition to the making of the order itself or the conditions attached to it.

The court was required to decide whether the original sentence, which imposed an extended supervision order for a period of ten years, was manifestly inadequate. The appeal hinged on whether the order's duration was a matter that the original sentencing judge could determine in the exercise of his or her discretion. The court considered the relevant statutory framework, particularly the operation of the relevant provisions of the Crimes (Serious Sex Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW).

The court determined that the original sentence imposed by the Supreme Court was manifestly inadequate and remitted the matter back to the Supreme Court for re-sentencing. The court found that the duration of an extended supervision order was a matter that the sentencing judge could determine in the exercise of their discretion, and that the original sentence did not reflect the gravity of the respondent's offending. The court also noted that the extended supervision order was a significant constraint on the respondent's liberty, and that the duration of the order should reflect the seriousness of the offending and the need for public protection.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal be allowed, the sentence of the Supreme Court be set aside, and the matter be remitted to the Supreme Court for re-sentencing. The court did not specify the appropriate length of the extended supervision order, leaving that matter to be determined by the Supreme Court on re-sentencing.