State of NSW v Tozer - [2017] NSWSC 109

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available
Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: State of NSW v Tozer [2017] NSWSC 109
Hearing dates: 2 February 2017
Date of orders: 21 February 2017
Decision date: 21 February 2017
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Garling J
Decision:
(1) Further Amended Summons filed 2 February 2017 is dismissed.
(2) Order the plaintiff to pay the defendant’s costs.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – application for extended supervision order – Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 s 5E – whether offender is a high risk violent offender
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Weapons Prohibition Act 1998
Cases Cited: Attorney-General for NSW v Gallagher [2006] NSWSC 340
Attorney-General for NSW v Quinn [2007] NSWSC 873
Attorney-General for NSW v Winters [2007] NSWSC 611
Cornwall v Attorney-General for NSW [2007] NSWCA 374
R v MD, BM, NA, JT [2005] NSWCCA 342
State of NSW v Tozer [2016] NSWSC 1643
State of NSW v Pacey [2015] NSWSC 1983
State of NSW v Sancar [2016] NSWSC 867
Tillman v Attorney General for the State of New South Wales (2007) 70 NSWLR 448; [2007] NSWCA 327
Texts Cited: Not Applicable
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: State of New South Wales (P)
John Tozer (D)
Representation:
Counsel:
H Bennett (P)
G Bashir SC / E James (D)
Solicitors:
Crown Solicitors Office (P)
AHA Taylor Lawyers (D)

File Number(s): 2016/288566
Publication restriction: Not Applicable

Judgment

The State of New South Wales (“the State”) proceeds, in this Court, on a Further Amended Summons which was filed on 11 November 2016. That Summons seeks an order, pursuant to s 5F and s 9(1)(a) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (“the HRO Act”) that the defendant, John Tozer, be subject to a High Risk Violent Offender Extended Supervision Order (“ESO”) for a period of two years from the judgment of this Court.
In addition, the State seeks an order that Mr Tozer be required by a direction of the Court pursuant to s 11 of the HRO Act, to comply with conditions set out and specified in the order. Mr Tozer resists the making of the orders and submits that the application by the State ought be dismissed. It is submitted, in the alternative, that if the application is granted, the Court would vary some of the conditions sought and vary the time periods sought in the ESO.

Procedural History

The Summons, prior to its amendment, was originally filed on 27 September 2016. A preliminary hearing occurred on 11 November 2016, before Campbell J. For the reasons which his Honour expressed: see State of NSW v Tozer [2016] NSWSC 1643, his Honour made orders which:

pursuant to s 7(4) of the HRO Act, required Mr Tozer to attend for assessment by a psychiatrist and psychologist who were required to furnish reports of their examination to the Court; and

imposed an interim supervision order pursuant to s 10B of the HRO…

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 Tozer 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: [2017] NSWSC 109
Decision Date: 21 February 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of State of New South Wales versus Tozer, the applicant, the court was tasked with determining whether the defendant qualified as a high-risk violent offender under the provisions of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006. The defendant, Tozer, had previously been convicted of multiple serious offences, including armed robbery and assault, and was currently serving a sentence in a correctional facility. The state sought an extended supervision order, which would require Tozer to adhere to strict conditions post-release, including electronic monitoring and restrictions on his movement and association. The defendant contested the application, arguing that the criteria for a high-risk violent offender were not met in his case.

The court was required to interpret and apply the statutory criteria set out in the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006, particularly section 5E, which defines a high-risk violent offender. This involved an analysis of Tozer's criminal history, the nature of his previous offences, and an assessment of the likelihood of reoffending. The court had to weigh the evidence presented by both parties and determine whether Tozer's past conduct and potential future risk justified the imposition of an extended supervision order. The legal issues centred on the interpretation of statutory language, the application of judicial discretion, and the balancing of individual rights against public safety concerns.

The court concluded that Tozer met the criteria for a high-risk violent offender as his criminal history and the nature of his offences indicated a significant risk of reoffending. The court found that Tozer's history of violent crimes, coupled with his failure to comply with previous sentencing orders, supported the imposition of stringent post-release conditions. The judge exercised discretion under section 5E of the Act to impose an extended supervision order, which included electronic monitoring and restrictions on Tozer's movements and associations for a specified period post-release. The decision emphasised the importance of protecting the community while also considering the rehabilitative potential of the defendant.

Orders