State of NSW v Weribone - [2016] NSWSC 1474

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: State of NSW v Weribone [2016] NSWSC 1474
Hearing dates: 12 October 2016
Date of orders: 19 October 2016
Decision date: 19 October 2016
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Bellew J
Decision:
See [83]

Catchwords: HIGH RISK OFFENDER – Application for Extended Supervision Order – Whether defendant a high risk violent offender – No point of principle
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Anderson v State of NSW [2016] NSWCA 86
State of NSW v Conway [2011] NSWSC 925
State of NSW v Conway [2011] NSWSC 976
State of NSW v Thorne [2016] NSWSC 233
State of NSW v Veeran [2015] NSWSC 75
State of NSW v Weribone [2016] NSWSC 1046
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: State of NSW – Plaintiff
Archie Weribone – Defendant
Representation:
Counsel:
I Fraser – Plaintiff
M Johnston SC – Defendant
Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor for NSW – Plaintiff
Legal Aid NSW – Defendant

File Number(s): 2016/206202
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

INTRODUCTION

By an amended summons filed in court on 12 October 2016 the plaintiff seeks the following:

An order pursuant to s. 17(1)(a) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 that the defendant be subject to a High Risk Offender Extended Supervision Order for a period of 5 years from the date of the order and, pursuant to s. 11 of the Act, a direction that for the period of the Extended Supervision Order the defendant comply with the conditions set out in the schedule to this further amended summons.

The defendant does not accept that he is a high risk violent offender. In the event that I find that he is, he raises no opposition to the making of an Extended Supervision Order (“ESO”) under the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) (“the Act”). However, he takes issue with:

the plaintiff’s suggested duration of 5 years of any ESO; and

the terms of some of the conditions which the plaintiff seeks to attach to such order.

THE EVIDENCE

The following affidavits were read without objection in the plaintiff’s case:

Emma Bayley of 7 July 2016;

Emma Bayley of 15 September 2016;

Emma Bayley of 10 October 2016;

Danielle Anna Matsuo of 16 September 2016;

Georgina Matthews of 10 October 2016;

John Bede Devoy of 14 September 2016.

In addition, some short oral evidence was given by Mr Devoy at the hearing.

THE PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The proceedings were commenced on 7 July 2016. At that time the defendant was serving the following sentences of imprisonment:

a sentence imposed for an offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm in company, which commenced on 10 July 2014 and concluded on 9 July 2016; and

a sentence imposed for an offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, which commenced on 28 August 2015 and concluded on 27 November 2016, the non-parole period of which concluded on 3 August 2016.

The defendant was released from custody on 3 August 2016. As…

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 Weribone

Details

AGLC: State of NSW v Weribone [2016] NSWSC 1474
Case: [2016] NSWSC 1474
Decision Date: 19 October 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The State of New South Wales filed an application against Weribone, a convicted offender, seeking an extended supervision order. The State argued that Weribone was a high-risk violent offender, warranting extended supervision beyond the completion of his sentence. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The court had to determine whether Weribone met the criteria for a high-risk violent offender under the relevant legislation. The key issue was whether there was sufficient evidence to justify the imposition of an extended supervision order, which could impose restrictions on the offender's movements and require regular reporting to authorities. The court also considered the principle of proportionality and whether the imposition of such an order was necessary to protect public safety.

The court found that Weribone did not present a significant risk of reoffending in a violent manner. The evidence presented did not establish that he posed a threat to the community if not subject to an extended supervision order. The court held that the State had not demonstrated a point of principle warranting the imposition of an extended supervision order. Consequently, the application was dismissed.

The Supreme Court of New South Wales ruled that Weribone was not a high-risk violent offender and denied the State's application for an extended supervision order.

Orders