State of NSW v Sines (No 3)

The State of New South Wales filed an application for an extended supervision order under the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 against Sines, a defendant with a significant history of violent criminal offending. The defendant had recently been released to the community after serving a sentence of imprisonment for wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The court had to determine the appropriate duration of the extended supervision order (ESO) and whether electronic monitoring and search and seizure conditions were necessary. Dr Singh, a forensic psychiatrist, assessed the defendant’s risk of future violence, concluding that he fell into the high-risk category and recommended an ESO for at least five years. The defendant’s solicitor presented evidence of his accommodation, courses undertaken, and rehabilitative efforts. The court considered the views of both parties, ultimately deciding that while a five-year order might be optimal, a three-year order was sufficient to monitor and manage the risk of reoffending. The court also found that electronic monitoring and search and seizure conditions were not essential for effective supervision.

The court evaluated the evidence and arguments presented, weighing the defendant's history of violent offending against his recent efforts at rehabilitation and the expert opinion on the necessary duration of the ESO. Dr Singh recommended a five-year order to facilitate a longitudinal appraisal of risk, while the defendant's legal representative argued that a shorter period could provide more encouragement for compliance. The court recognised that if the defendant was to revert to his previous lifestyle, it would likely occur quickly. Therefore, a three-year order was deemed adequate to monitor and manage the risk while providing the defendant with a clear, achievable goal to promote his rehabilitation. The court also concluded that electronic monitoring and search and seizure conditions were not necessary for effective supervision, considering the intrusion on the defendant's liberty.

In conclusion, the court granted the State's application for an extended supervision order on the defendant for a period of three years. However, the court refused to impose conditions requiring the defendant to submit to electronic monitoring or search and seizure. The decision acknowledged that while a longer period might be preferable, a three-year order balanced the need to manage the defendant's risk of reoffending and support his rehabilitation. The court left open the possibility for the State to apply for an extension of the order if circumstances warranted it.