State of NSW v Tiggelen - [2018] NSWSC 1399

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: State of NSW v Tiggelen [2018] NSWSC 1399
Hearing dates: 7 September 2018
Date of orders: 14 September 2018
Decision date: 14 September 2018
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Harrison J
Decision:
(1) Order pursuant to section 7(4) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 ("the Act") that:

(a)   Dr Richard Furst be appointed to conduct a psychiatric examinations of the defendant and to furnish a report on the results of that examination to the Supreme Court of New South Wales by 30 November 2018;

(b)   Dr Katie Seidler be appointed to conduct a psychological examination of the defendant and to furnish a report on the results of that examination to the Supreme Court of New South Wales by 30 November 2018;

(c)   The defendant attend the appointment with Dr Richard Furst; and

(d)   The defendant attend the appointment with Dr Katie Seidler.

(2) Order pursuant to section 10A of the Act, that the defendant be subject to an interim supervision order commencing from midnight on 30 November 2018 (“the interim supervision order”).

(3) Order pursuant to section 10C(1) of the Act, that the interim supervision order be for a period of 28 days from the date of the order unless renewed on further application by the plaintiff for another period of 28 days or the proceedings are finally determined.

(4) Order pursuant to section 11 of the Act, that the defendant comply with the conditions set out in the Schedule annexed to the Amended Summons in these proceedings filed on 7 September 2018 for the period of the interim supervision order referred to in order 3 above.

(5)   Direct that the matter be listed on 14 December 2018 to hear the plaintiff’s application for a renewal of the interim supervision order for a further period of 28 days.

(6)   Direct that the matter be listed for hearing on 31 January 2019 at 10:00am with an estimate of one day.

(7)   Direct that the plaintiff file and serve any evidence for the final hearing and written submissions by 21 December 2018.

(8)   Direct that the defendant file and serve any evidence for the final hearing and written submissions by 14 January 2019.

(9)   Direct that the plaintiff file and serve any updating evidence and submissions in reply by 23 January 2019.

(10)   Direct that each party inform the other of which witnesses, if any, are required for cross examination for the final hearing by no later than 5pm on 24 January 2019.
(11)   Direct that the plaintiff provide to the chambers of the judge allocated to preside at the final hearing a working copy of each document to be relied upon by the parties by no later than 28 January 2019.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – high risk offender – serious sex offender – preliminary hearing – whether high risk sex offender interim supervision order should be made – where extensive criminal history – where defendant does not oppose the making of an…

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.

Continue reading State of NSW v Tiggelen

Details

AGLC: State of NSW v Tiggelen [2018] NSWSC 1399
Case: [2018] NSWSC 1399
Decision Date: 14 September 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the State of New South Wales versus Tiggelen, the case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The defendant, Tiggelen, is facing a charge for an offence under the Serious Sex Offenders (Detention and Monitoring) Act 2006 (NSW). The central issue was whether an interim supervision order should be made, and if so, what conditions should be attached to it, given the defendant's extensive criminal history and his non-opposition to the making of the order, but his objection to the inclusion of electronic monitoring as a condition.

The legal issues before the court included the criteria for making an interim supervision order under the Serious Sex Offenders (Detention and Monitoring) Act 2006 (NSW). Specifically, the court needed to consider whether Tiggelen met the criteria for being classified as a serious sex offender and what conditions, if any, should be imposed as part of the interim supervision order. The court also had to balance the defendant's objections to certain conditions against the need for appropriate measures to manage the risk he posed to the community.

The court found that Tiggelen met the criteria for being classified as a serious sex offender, based on his criminal history. Given that the defendant did not oppose the making of an interim supervision order, the court proceeded to consider the appropriate conditions. While the defendant objected to electronic monitoring, the court determined that this condition was necessary to manage the risk he posed. The court also agreed with the parties' nomination of a psychiatrist and psychologist to be appointed for the defendant. The Supreme Court concluded that the interim supervision order should be made with conditions, including electronic monitoring, and the nominated psychiatrist and psychologist.

The final orders included the making of an interim supervision order under the Serious Sex Offenders (Detention and Monitoring) Act 2006 (NSW), with conditions that the defendant be subject to electronic monitoring, and that the nominated psychiatrist and psychologist be appointed to supervise the defendant. The defendant's objections to electronic monitoring were overruled in the interest of public safety and risk management.

Orders