State of NSW v Norstead - [2019] NSWSC 1095

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: State of NSW v Norstead [2019] NSWSC 1095
Hearing dates: 15 August 2019
Decision date: 27 August 2019
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Button J
Decision:
(1) An order pursuant to s 7(4) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (“the Act”):
(a) Appointing two qualified psychiatrists or a psychiatrist and a psychologist 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 subsequently fixed by the Court; and
(b) Directing the Defendant to attend those examinations.

(2) An order pursuant to s 10A of the Act that the Defendant be subject to an interim supervision order from the date of the order for a period of 28 days; and
(3) An order pursuant to s 11 of the Act directing the Defendant to comply with the conditions set out in the Schedule to this judgment of the duration of the interim order referred to in order 2 above.
Catchwords: HIGH RISK OFFENDER – sex offender – application for appointment of two psychiatrists/psychologists pursuant to s 7(4) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (the Act) – application for interim supervision order (ISO) pursuant to s 10A of the Act – where defendant bail refused on fresh charges – where application for ISO arguably wholly contingent – no controversy about application for psychiatric/psychological examinations – no controversy about application for ISO – consideration of contingent nature of proposed ISO – ISO imposed – discussion of disputed ISO conditions
Legislation Cited: Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), ss 7(4), 10A, 10C(1A), 11 and 13
Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW), ss 15A and 15B
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: State of NSW (Plaintiff)
Jason Norstead (a pseudonym) (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
C McGorey (Plaintiff)
S Goodwin and S Healy (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Crown Solictor’s Office (Plaintiff)
VeritganLaw (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2019/234873
Publication restriction: Pseudonym adopted for the defendant

Judgment

Preliminary matters

It is convenient to begin by referring to a number of preliminary matters.
First, the defendant in these proceedings is referred to by a pseudonym in this judgment because it reveals criminal offences for which he was sentenced in the Children’s Court. Although s 15B of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW) permits me to refer to his name in this judgment, I believe that it would be anomalous for the judgment to be published openly on the Caselaw website (which I consider appropriate), and yet for a member of the community to commit a criminal offence pursuant to s 15A of the same Act, if he or she were to refer publicly to its contents.
Secondly, the applicant was represented at the preliminary hearing before me pursuant to the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) (hereafter “the Act”) by counsel and solicitor very experienced in criminal and quasi-criminal law. As well as that, on the day of the hearing…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read State of NSW v Norstead and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2019] NSWSC 1095
Decision Date: 27 August 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The State of New South Wales sought the appointment of two psychiatrists or psychologists to examine the defendant, Norstead, pursuant to section 7(4) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006. Norstead, a high-risk offender, faced an application for an interim supervision order (ISO) under section 10A of the Act. The application for the ISO arose following the refusal of Norstead's bail on fresh charges, and it was contingent upon the outcome of the psychiatric or psychological examinations. Although there was no dispute about the necessity for the examinations or the application for the ISO, the court had to consider the contingent nature of the proposed ISO.

The legal issues that the court had to address included whether the contingent nature of the ISO application affected the court's ability to make a decision, and whether the conditions proposed for the ISO were appropriate. The court examined whether the contingent nature of the application warranted any particular consideration and whether it was appropriate to impose conditions on the ISO that were dependent on the outcome of the examinations. The court also had to consider the potential consequences of imposing the proposed conditions, given the contingent nature of the ISO.

In determining the appropriate course of action, the court found that the contingent nature of the ISO application did not preclude the court from making a decision. The court acknowledged the necessity for the examinations and the application for the ISO, and it was satisfied that the proposed conditions were appropriate given the circumstances. The court imposed the ISO with the proposed conditions, recognising the importance of ensuring that Norstead was appropriately supervised in light of the fresh charges against him. The court's decision was focused on ensuring that the necessary steps were taken to protect the community while also considering the rights of the defendant.

Orders