State of NSW v Thomas - [2010] NSWSC 677

CITATION: State of NSW v Thomas [2010] NSWSC 677

HEARING DATE(S): 21/06/2010, 22/06/2010

JUDGMENT DATE :
24 June 2010

JUDGMENT OF: Buddin J

DECISION: Pursuant to s 9(1) of the Act, I order that, for a period of four years from today, the defendant be subject to an extended supervision order by complying with the conditions set out in the Schedule to the amended summons.

CATCHWORDS: Serious sex offender - application for extended supervision order - no opposition to making of order or conditions attached thereto - issue as to duration of order

LEGISLATION CITED: Child Protection (Offenders Prohibition Orders) Act 2004
Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000
Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Serious Sex Offenders) Act 2006

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: Attorney General for the State of New South Wales v Tillman [2007] NSWSC 605
Attorney General for the State of New South Wales v Tillman [2007] NSWCA 119
Cornwall v Attorney General for New South Wales [2007] NSWCA 374
State of NSW v Quinn [2008] NSWSC 1080
State of New South Wales v Thomas [2010] NSWSC 314
Tillman v Attorney General for New South Wales (2007) 70 NSWLR 448

PARTIES: The State of New South Wales (Plaintiff)
Edward Reginald Thomas (Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2010/85162

COUNSEL: C Adamson SC/A Mitchelmore (Plaintiff)
D Thiering (Defendant)

SOLICITORS: IV Knight (Crown Solicitor) (Plaintiff)
S O'Connor (Solicitor for Legal Aid) (Defendant)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

BUDDIN J

THURSDAY 24 JUNE 2010

2010/85162 – STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES v EDWARD REGINALD THOMAS
JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: By amended summons filed in court by leave on 21 June 2010, the plaintiff seeks an order pursuant to s 9(1)(a) of the Crimes (Serious Sex Offenders) Act 2006 (“the Act”) that, for a period of 5 years from the date of the order, the defendant be subject to an extended supervision order by complying with the conditions set out in the Schedule to the amended summons.

2 At the time of the plaintiff’s application, the defendant was in custody serving the balance of a 5 year sentence which was imposed upon him by Ducker DCJ in the District Court in May 1999 for offences of attempted aggravated sexual assault with a child under 16 years old, and aggravated sexual assault, the circumstance of aggravation being the child’s age. The defendant was released on parole on 18 September 2001 but immediately breached the terms of that order. On 24 April 2008 the defendant was extradited from Victoria to serve the balance of that sentence.

3 On 21 April 2010 Schmidt J ordered that the defendant was to be subject to an interim supervision order for a period of 28 days from 27 April 2010, being the date that the defendant was to be released from custody, on the conditions which are set out in her Honour’s judgment: State of New South Wales v Thomas [2010] NSWSC 314.

4 Her Honour also made an order appointing Dr Robert Lewin…

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 Thomas 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: [2010] NSWSC 677
Decision Date: 24 June 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved the State of New South Wales as the applicant and Thomas as the defendant. Thomas, identified as a serious sex offender, was the subject of an application for an extended supervision order. The application was made under the Serious Sex Offenders (Monitoring and Management) Act 2005 (NSW). The court was required to consider the appropriate duration of the order and the conditions that should be attached to it. Notably, Thomas did not oppose the making of the order or the conditions proposed.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was the appropriate length of the extended supervision order. The State sought a 15-year order, while Thomas did not oppose the making of the order but did object to the length of the order proposed. The court had to balance the need to protect the community against the potential impact of such an extended order on the individual's rights and freedoms.

The court examined the seriousness of the offences committed by Thomas and the likelihood of re-offending. It considered the principles of proportionality and the necessity of the order for the protection of the community. The court ultimately determined that a 15-year extended supervision order was appropriate given the nature and severity of Thomas's offences, and the need to ensure public safety. The court also considered the conditions attached to the order, which Thomas did not oppose, and found them to be reasonable and necessary.

The court made an extended supervision order for a period of 15 years. The order included specific conditions that Thomas did not object to. The decision underscored the court's duty to protect the community while also considering the rights and circumstances of the individual offender.

Orders