State of NSW v Mills

The State of New South Wales, represented by the Department of Justice, applied to the Supreme Court for a variation of an existing extended supervision order (ESO) for an individual identified as Mills. The application sought to modify the existing ESO due to concerns about the risk Mills posed to the public, specifically in relation to violent and sexual offending. Mills, who had been previously convicted of violent crimes and had a diagnosis of anti-social personality disorder, was alleged to have a general sexual preoccupation and posed an unacceptable risk of committing serious sex offences. The court was required to determine whether the existing conditions of the ESO were appropriate to manage the risk posed by Mills.

The central legal issue the court had to decide was whether the existing conditions of the ESO were sufficient to manage the risk posed by Mills, particularly in relation to the risk of serious sexual offending. The court needed to assess the evidence provided regarding Mills' anti-social personality disorder, his history of violent offending, his general sexual preoccupation, and the likelihood of reoffending in the absence of stricter supervision and conditions. The court also needed to consider whether additional conditions could be imposed to effectively manage the risk posed by Mills while ensuring that such conditions were proportionate and did not unduly infringe upon Mills' rights.

The court found that the existing conditions of the ESO were inadequate to manage the risk posed by Mills. The court took into account the evidence provided by the State, which included expert psychiatric assessments and a detailed analysis of Mills' criminal history. The court considered that Mills' anti-social personality disorder and general sexual preoccupation presented a significant risk to the community, particularly in relation to serious sexual offending. The court concluded that stricter conditions were necessary to effectively manage this risk and imposed additional conditions on the ESO. These conditions included requirements for Mills to undergo regular psychiatric and psychological assessments, to participate in a treatment program addressing his sexual preoccupations, and to refrain from engaging in certain activities that could facilitate sexual offending.

The final orders of the court were to vary the existing ESO for Mills by imposing additional conditions aimed at managing the risk he posed to the community. These conditions included mandatory psychiatric and psychological assessments, participation in a treatment program addressing his sexual preoccupations, and restrictions on certain activities that could facilitate sexual offending. The court also ordered that Mills comply with regular reporting requirements to the supervising authority to ensure ongoing monitoring and management of the risk he posed.