The State of New South Wales v Johnson
[2010] NSWSC 590
•31 May 2010
CITATION: The State of New South Wales v Johnson [2010] NSWSC 590 HEARING DATE(S): 31 May 2010 JUDGMENT OF: Latham J EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 31 May 2010 DECISION: 1. Dr Allnutt and Dr O'Dea be appointed to conduct separate psychiatric examinations of the defendant and that reports be furnished to the Supreme Court on the results of those examinations on or before 8 July 2010, and I direct the defendant to attend those examinations.
2. Pursuant to section 8(1) of the Act, I order that the defendant be subject to an interim supervision order from 3 June 2010 for a period of 28 days and, pursuant to section 11 of the Act, direct that, for the period of the interim supervision order, the defendant comply with the conditions set out in the schedule to these orders which will be annexed to this judgment.
3. I list the matter for further mention and for the purpose of any application by the plaintiff to renew the interim supervision order before the duty judge at 2pm on Friday, 25 June 2010.
4. I grant liberty to apply on one day's notice.
5. I direct that access to the court file, in respect of any document, shall not be granted without the leave of a judge of the court. If any access is made by a non-party, in respect of any document, the parties are to be notified by the registrar, so as to be given the opportunity to be heard.CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Crimes (Serious Sexual Offenders) Act 2006 - Interim supervision order - Where respondent has served sentence - Where respondent has lengthy criminal history for offences of sexual assualt - Where respondent has problem with alcohol abuse and history of non-compliance with parole and supervisory conditions - Where evidence of high risk of recidivism LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Serious Sex Offenders) Act 2006 CATEGORY: Principal judgment PARTIES: The State of New south Wales - Plaintiff
Keith William Johnson - DefendantFILE NUMBER(S): SC 2010/114193 COUNSEL: D Kell - Plaintiff
D Hehia SC - DefendantSOLICITORS: I V Knight - Crown Solicitor - Plaintiff
Aboriginal Legal Service - Defendant
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
LATHAM J
31 MAY 2010
JUDGMENT2010/114193 THE STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES v KEITH WILLIAM JOHNSON
1 By summons filed on the 7th of May 2010, the plaintiff seeks orders against the defendant, Keith William Johnson, pursuant to the Crimes (Serious Sex Offenders) Act 2006.
2 The final relief sought in the proceedings is that the defendant be subject to an extended supervision order under section 9(1)(a) of the Act for a period of five years. However, the State does not seek an order for the continued detention of the defendant.
- The matter has proceeded today as a preliminary hearing under section 7(3) of the Act for the court to determine whether to appoint two psychiatrists to examine the defendant and furnish separate reports. The matter is also listed for a hearing of the State's claim for an order that the defendant be subject to an interim supervision order under section 8(1) of the Act from the 3rd of June 2010.
3 The defendant is presently serving a sentence of imprisonment for two years for the offence of indecent assault. The defendant's sentence expires on Thursday, the 3rd of June 2010.
4 The defendant committed the index sexual offence a little more than two months after his release from custody, at the expiry of his sentence in respect of the sexual offence that he committed in 2006.
5 The defendant is 69 years of age. He has a history of committing sexual offences against children and adults of varying ages. He has been convicted of sexual offences in New South Wales in 1992, 1998, 2001, 2007 and 2008. He has also been convicted of a sexual offence in South Australia in 1974.
6 There are also convictions in 1972 in Queensland and in 1982 in New South Wales, committed in a sexual context. For the main part, the defendant's victims of his sexual offences have been males aged 16 years or under.
7 In support of the present application, the State relies upon an affidavit of Emma Bayley, affirmed on 7 May 2010; a further affidavit of Emma Bayley, affirmed on 19 May 2010, with an attached exhibit which has become exhibit A on these proceedings; an affidavit of Cheryl White, affirmed 19 May 2010; an affidavit of Jillian Mears, affirmed 17 May 2010, with an attached exhibit that has become exhibit B on these proceedings; an affidavit of Nicholas Vrzic, affirmed on 17 May 2010, and a confidential exhibit which has been marked exhibit C on these proceedings; and, lastly, a chronology which has been marked exhibit D on these proceedings.
8 Sections 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Act are relevant to this application. Sections 6 and 9 deal with extended supervision orders. Section 6, which is headed "Application for extended Supervision Order" stipulates the circumstances under which the State may apply to this court for an extended supervision order against a sex offender.
9 Section 6(3) provides that an application must be supported by documentation that addresses each of the matters referred to in section 9(3).
10 Section 9 is headed "Determination of Application for extended Supervision Order" and provides that an extended supervision order may be made if, and only if, the court is satisfied to a high degree of probability that the offender is likely to commit a further serious sex offence if he or she is not kept under supervision and that, in determining whether or not to make an extended supervision order, the court must have regard to a number of factors that are listed from (a) to (i) in subsection (3).
11 Section 7 of the Act provides for a preliminary hearing to be undertaken in which the court is to consider whether it is satisfied that the matters alleged in the supporting documentation would, if proved, justify the making of a final order. If they would, the court is required to order that psychiatric examinations be undertaken of the defendant. If the court is not so satisfied, the application must be dismissed.
12 Section 8(1) of the Act empowers the court to make an interim supervision order if the offender's current custody will expire before the proceedings are determined and the matters alleged in the supporting documentation would, if proved, justify the making of an extended supervision order.
13 The interim supervision order cannot exceed 28 days, although it can be renewed from time to time, but not so as to exceed a total period of three months. In these circumstances, it is necessary to have regard to section 9 of the Act and, in particular, to the factors identified in section 9(3),
14 The court's role on an application for an interim order, under section 8(1), is the same as the task established on a preliminary hearing under section 7. At a preliminary hearing for an extended supervision order or on an application for an interim supervision order, the court must consider whether the supporting documentation would, if proved, justify the making of an extended supervision order.
15 At both the preliminary hearing, required under section 7(3) of the Act and when considering an application for interim supervision under section 8(1), the court is not to weigh the documentation or to try to predict the result of the case at a final hearing, but is to assess whether, if proved, the documentation would justify the making of either type of final order. This is to be determined on a prima facie basis.
16 I turn to the matters alleged in the supporting documentation for the purposes of determining whether they would satisfy the requirements of section 9. Those requirements are that the matters alleged in supporting documentation would, if proved, satisfy the court to a high degree of probability that the offender is likely to commit a further serious sex offence if he or she is not kept under supervision and the matters set out in section 9(3).
17 Turning, firstly, to the defendant's offending history, as required by section 9(3)(h) of the Act, the defendant has convictions for sexual offences in 1974, 1992, 1998, 2001, 2006 and 2008. The defendant also has convictions for aggravated assault on a female child in 1972 and an assault against a 12-year-old boy in 1982, both of which were committed in a sexual context.
18 The index sexual offence, which was committed on 16 May 2008, and, as I have noted, was committed little more than two months after his release from custody at the expiry of a sentence for a sexual offence committed in 2006, was committed on a 16-year-old male.
19 At the time of the offence, the defendant was 67 years of age. The defendant befriended the victim at Central Railway Station and assisted him in buying cigarettes. The defendant told the victim that he was an Aboriginal Elder in Western Australia and also that he was ex-army. When the victim's train arrived, the defendant offered to travel with the victim. During the journey, the defendant moved closer to the victim and twice placed his hand on the victim's leg. The victim objected and the defendant said, "It's all right."
20 Shortly after, the defendant forcibly placed his right hand down the front of the victim's jeans and underpants and squeezed the victim's testicles and penis. The victim stood up, but the defendant blocked his path. The victim then kneed the defendant to the leg and ran to get assistance from a guard. In the meantime, the defendant got off the train when it stopped at Hurstville Station.
21 The defendant was later interviewed by police and denied having left Central Station. He was unable to explain images of himself at Hurstville Railway Station shortly after the offence.
22 On the 3rd of November 2008, the defendant was sentenced to a term of two years imprisonment with a nonparole period of 18 months. The term of imprisonment commenced on 4 June 2008 and will expire on 3 June 2010.
23 Pursuant to section 50 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, the court made an order directing that the defendant be released on parole on 3 December 2009, subject to conditions and supervision during parole, particularly in respect to sex offender programs.
24 The pre-sentence report of the 31st of October 2008 notes that the defendant described feeling disassociated from the circumstances of the offence and cited a period of blackout, primarily related to excessive alcohol consumption prior to the offence. A similar note appears in a departmental record of the 18th of November 2008.
25 In the course of that record, it is noted that the defendant declined to be assessed for the CUBIT Program stating that he denies the charges and has no recollection of the events.
26 In a psychological risk assessment report of the 6th of April 2010, Jillian Mears reports the defendant as asserting, in respect of the index offence, that the contact had been consensual and that the victim had lied. The defendant also confirmed that he was "pretty drunk" at the time.
27 Ms Mears reported that the defendant was bitter at having to plead guilty in order to avoid embarrassment for the victim and that he is in gaol at the victim's expense.
28 It is not necessary to recount in the same detail the offences, other than the index offence, constituting the defendant's criminal history. Suffice to say that all of the defendant's offences, but for an offence committed at Goulburn in January 2001 involved prepubescent and pubescent boys who were befriended by the defendant and sexually assaulted by him, generally by fondling of their genitalia, either inside or outside their clothing. In every case, the defendant claimed that the offences arose out of his excessive consumption of alcohol.
29 I turn to the matter provided for by section 9(3)(f) of the Act, namely noncompliance with parole conditions and other supervision obligations.
30 The defendant has a history of failure to appear and noncompliance with conditions of parole and good behaviour bonds. He has demonstrated a generally poor response to supervision. He has two convictions for failure to appear in court: One in October 1981; and another in May 1998.
31 His criminal history also records a number of entries where he has not appeared in court and a bench warrant has issued, namely in March 1981, October 1982, August 1983, March 1986 and November 1995.
32 In addition, when the defendant committed the offence on 25 October 1982, he was in breach of his recognisance to be of good behaviour for two years imposed on 26 November 1981. That recognisance had been imposed in respect of a conviction for taking and using *-a used motor vehicle without consent.
33 On 23 February 2007, the defendant was convicted of indecent assault and sentenced in the Mudgee Local Court to imprisonment for 18 months with a nonparole period of 12 months. He was ordered to be released on parole on 11 September 2007, subject to conditions and supervision.
34 On 25 October 2007, less than two months after the defendant's release on parole, the defendant's parole was revoked on the basis that he had failed to obey reasonable directions of a supervising officer; that he had failed to reside at an agreed address; and that he had failed to observe a condition not to associate with specified persons.
35 In revoking the defendant's parole, the State Parole Authority had regard to a probation and parole report of the 25th of October 2007, recommending that his parole be revoked as a matter of urgency.
36 Following revocation of parole on 25 October 2007, a warrant was issued and the defendant was returned to custody. He served the remainder of that sentence in custody.
37 Turning to the issue of the defendant's compliance with reporting obligations under the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act of 2000 or the Child Protection (Offenders Prohibition Orders) Act of 2004, there are no complaints that have been made regarding the defendant's compliance with reporting obligations in this respect.
38 Turning to section 9(3)(e) of the Act and the issue of the defendant's compliance with sex offender treatment, it is noted that, prior to his entry into the CUBIT Program, the defendant's attitude towards treatment was described as being "ambivalent to negative".
39 The defendant has, on occasions, indicated a disinterest in undertaking sex offender treatment.
40 On 29 April 2009, the defendant commenced the preparatory program for sex offenders. He attended 12 sessions, however, he was noted as refusing a referral to treatment programs.
41 On 19 October 2009, the defendant commenced treatment in the custodial-based CUBIT Program designed for high risk sex offenders. He completed the program on Tuesday, 26 May 2010.
42 In order to undertake the CUBIT Program, the defendant signed documentation consenting to decline parole until completion of the treatment program. The defendant would otherwise have been released on parole on 3 December 2009.
43 On 26 November 2009, at his request, the State Parole Authority revoked the defendant's parole order. A report of the 12th of November 2009 supported the defendant's request for revocation of parole.
44 After commencing the CUBIT Program, a treatment update report of the 2nd of March 2010 noted that the defendant's participation in group sessions varied between poor and satisfactory. The defendant's work in CUBIT, on issues directly related to him, was described as "problematic". The defendant was said to have displayed a pattern of avoidance that appears to be longstanding.
45 The defendant's treatment progress has also been described as "very slow" because his responses to questions, either in group or in written homework, are often not related to his particular situation or are so generalised that they are irrelevant.
46 In a report of the 6th of April 2010, Ms Mears records her discussions with a Mr McElhone on the 2nd and 24th of March 2010 relating to the defendant's progress in CUBIT. The defendant was reported to be experiencing difficulty engaging in a number of treatment-related issues.
47 Mr McElhone reported a concern about the defendant's emotional regulation and stated that avoidant and defensive behaviours by the defendant were a repetitive theme in treatment. The defendant's progress was described as "slow" and that that was likely to be the case just prior to his release from custody.
48 I turn to the issue of the defendant's abuse of alcohol (see section 9(3)(i) of the Act).
49 The defendant has a longstanding problem with the abuse of alcohol and has identified himself as a chronic alcoholic. He has reported that he began drinking alcohol from age 10. Furthermore, alcohol has been identified as a factor in respect of a number of his sexual offences. The defendant himself has linked his alcohol abuse with his sexual offending. Alcohol is linked to the offences in 1992, 2001, 2006 and 2008.
50 In an early psychiatric report of the 8th of October 1980, the defendant's severe drinking problem was noted. Since that time, his chronic alcoholism has been a constant theme in various reports, including a report of the 6th of July 1992 under the hand of Dr Yolande Lucire, a consultant psychiatrist. Dr Lucire said that the defendant has been a heavy drinker for 35 years and is not likely to change.
51 A court report of the 15th of May 1998 describes the defendant as a self-confessed alcoholic.
52 To similar effect is a report under the hand of Dr Stephen Allnutt of the 20th of February 2002. There are many other references to the defendant's alcohol abuse in pre-sentence reports in March 2002 and September of 2007.
53 I turn to the issue of risk assessment addressed under section 9(3)(c) and (d) of the Act.
54 In a psychiatric report prepared for the District Court and dated 20 February 2002, Dr Allnutt diagnosed the defendant as suffering from "substance abuse disorder and dependence". Dr Allnutt referred to the defendant's history of substance abuse, predominantly alcohol, dating from the age of ten, which significantly impacted on his occupational and social functioning. Dr Allnutt suggested that his history was indicative of possible paedophilia.
55 Ms Jillian Mears carried out a psychological risk assessment for the purposes of a potential application under the Act. Ms Mears is a recognised specialist in the field. For the purposes of her report, Ms Mears interviewed the defendant on the 2nd and 24th of March 2010. She assessed the defendant by reference to both actuarial risk assessment, otherwise known as "Static 99 R" and dynamic risk factors.
56 The defendant scored a 5 on the Static 99 R, thus placing him in the moderate to high risk category relative to other adult male sex offenders.
57 Ms Mears also considered the defendant's score of 5, by reference to relative risk. In this respect, Ms Mears stated that, in the Static 99 R sample population, sex offenders with a score of 5 showed 2.42 times the recidivism rate of a typical sex offender.
58 In terms of the defendant's age, Ms Mears regards the Static 99 R as underestimating his risk of sexual recidivism, having regard to the fact that the offender has sexually offended at 67 years of age and previously at 66 years of age.
59 In addition to the Static 99 R assessment, Ms Mears considered both stable, dynamic risk factors and acute dynamic risk factors.
60 In relation to the stable dynamic risk factors, Ms Mears had regard to intimacy deficits, social influences, distorted attitudes, general self-regulation and sexual self-regulation.
61 Ms Mears identified a number of stable dynamic risk factors for the defendant which, in summary, indicate that the defendant has limited capacity to invest in intimate and stable relationships; that he remains isolated and lonely with very limited social networks; that he has cognitive distortions associated with his offending; a life-long problem with general self-regulation and difficulty with sexual self-regulation.
62 In terms of the potential acute dynamic risk factors, Ms Mears identified substance abuse, emotional collapse, victim access and collapse of social supports as key risk factors.
63 Ms Mears states that, while the defendant recognises these factors, he has not yet developed the skills to manage them. Having regard to both actuarial and dynamic risk assessment, Ms Mears assessed the defendant as presenting a high risk of sexual re-offending.
64 The remaining matter to discuss is that referred to under section 9(3)(a) of the Act, namely the safety of the community. All of the above factors that have been discussed are relevant to this matter.
65 In summary, then, having regard to the safety of the community, the defendant has a lengthy history of committing sexual offences over a span of four decades. He committed the index sexual offence within a short period of time after his release from custody for a similar offence. He has a longstanding problem with alcohol abuse and a history of noncompliance with parole and supervisory conditions.
66 Whilst he is has undertaken the CUBIT Treatment Program, his progress was described as "slow" and he was assessed as presenting a high risk of sexual re-offending and requiring a high need for continuing supervision.
67 Taking all of these matters into account, I am satisfied that the orders requested by the plaintiff are justified. Accordingly, I make the following orders, pursuant to section 7(4) of the Act:
- 1. That Dr Allnutt and Dr O'Dea be appointed to conduct separate psychiatric examinations of the defendant and that reports be furnished to the Supreme Court on the results of those examinations on or before 8 July 2010, and I direct the defendant to attend those examinations.
2. Pursuant to section 8(1) of the Act, I order that the defendant be subject to an interim supervision order from 3 June 2010 for a period of 28 days and, pursuant to section 11 of the Act, direct that, for the period of the interim supervision order, the defendant comply with the conditions set out in the schedule to these orders which will be annexed to this judgment.
3. I list the matter for further mention and for the purpose of any application by the plaintiff to renew the interim supervision order before the duty judge at 2pm on Friday, 25 June 2010.
4. I grant liberty to apply on one day's notice.
5. I direct that access to the court file, in respect of any document, shall not be granted without the leave of a judge of the court. If any access is made by a non-party, in respect of any document, the parties are to be notified by the registrar, so as to be given the opportunity to be heard.
Schedule
INTERIM SUPERVISION ORDER:
CONDITIONS APPLICABLE TO KEITH WILLIAM JOHNSON
For the purpose of these conditions, the Departmental supervising officer is the person authorised from time to time by the Commissioner of Corrective Services to manage and supervise the defendant pursuant to the extended supervision order. The Department is the Department of Justice and Attorney General ("the Department"). Corrective Services NSW is a division of the Department. The Community Compliance Group (“the CCG”) and Probation and Parole are each part of Corrective Services NSW.
Reporting and monitoring obligations
1. For the duration of the supervision order, the defendant must accept the supervision of the CCG.
2. The defendant must report personally once a week to the Departmental supervising officer or otherwise as directed by that officer.
3. The defendant must comply with any reasonable direction given by the Departmental supervising officer or any other Departmental officer who may from time to time be allocated to the defendant’s case.
4. The defendant must not, for the period of the supervision order, commit any offence punishable by a period of imprisonment.
5. The defendant must wear such electronic monitoring equipment as may from time to time be directed by the Departmental supervising officer and comply with all instructions given by a CCG officer in relation to the operation of such equipment, and must not tamper with or remove such equipment.
6. If directed by the Departmental supervising officer, the defendant must inform the Departmental supervising officer of his movements 48 hours in advance by providing a schedule in writing (or as otherwise directed by the Departmental supervising officer) and must obtain prior approval from the Departmental supervising officer for any proposed change.
Accommodation
7. For the duration of the order the defendant must reside at accommodation approved by the Departmental supervising officer.
Note
It is envisaged that the defendant will reside at a Community Offenders Support Program (COSP) centre for a period of up to six months.
8. The defendant must accept visits at his approved accommodation, including visits without prior notice, by the Departmental supervising officer or any other Departmental officer who may from time to time be allocated to the defendant’s case.
9. If directed by his Departmental supervising officer, the defendant must be at his approved address between 9pm and 6am (or such other hours as may be specified) unless his presence at another place during those hours has been approved by his Departmental supervising officer.
10. The defendant must not leave the State of New South Wales without the written permission of the Commissioner of Corrective Services (“the Commissioner”).
Employment
11. The defendant must not undertake employment other than that which has been approved by the Departmental supervising officer.
12. The defendant must not associate with any persons specified by the Departmental supervising officer.
13. Without limiting paragraph 12 above, the defendant must not, without the prior permission of the Departmental supervising officer, contact or communicate by any means with, or attempt to contact or communicate by any means with, the victims of the sexual offences for which the defendant was sentenced on 9 July 1992, 15 May 1998, 6 September 2001, 23 February 2007 and 3 November 2008.
14. The defendant must not approach, associate or have any contact with children under the age of 16 years unless in the presence of an appropriate adult (being a person previously approved in writing by the Departmental supervising officer for the purpose of this condition).
15. The defendant must not, without the prior written permission of the Departmental supervising officer, attend any schools, pre-schools, day care centres, amusement parlours, caravan parks, children’s playgrounds, parks and playing fields.
16. Without limiting paragraph 15 above, the defendant must not attend any such further place, where children or a child may from time to time be present, as the Departmental supervising officer may direct, unless the defendant is accompanied by a person approved in advance for such purpose by the Departmental supervising officer.
17. (a) The defendant must not possess or consume any alcohol (including any alcohol-based products such as methylated spirits);
(b) The defendant must not abuse prescription medication or other forms of medication;
(c) The defendant must not possess or consume any illicit drugs; and
(d) The defendant must submit to drug and alcohol testing as directed by the Departmental supervising officer.
18. The defendant must not go to any licensed premises, excluding restaurants and cafes, but including hotels, bars, licensed clubs and racecourses, without the prior approval of the Departmental supervising officer.
19. (a) The defendant must not possess or view pornography (including child pornography) and must not access, or attempt to access, pornography by any means.
(b) Without limiting sub-paragraph (a), the defendant must not access the internet to view or to download pornography.
20. The defendant must comply with any direction made by the Departmental Supervising Officer regarding access to the internet by him, and without limitation the Departmental Supervising Officer may direct the defendant to use on any computer a parental lock or other device or software that may restrict access to or permit access only to certain web sites.
21. The defendant must not attempt to or access the internet by the use of any computer available in any internet café or internet kiosk or other public area without the prior approval of the Departmental Supervising Officer.
22. If and as directed by the Departmental Supervising Officer, the defendant must:
- (a) permit the Departmental Supervising Officer, and any computer technician employed or engaged by or on behalf of the Department to assist or advise the Departmental Supervising Officer, to access and inspect any computer owned by the defendant, including the temporary removal of the computer from his place of residence for the purpose of inspection;
(b) take all available steps to permit the Departmental Supervising Officer and the computer technician to have access to and inspect any computer used by but not owned by the defendant;
(c) provide the Departmental Supervising Officer and the computer technician with any requested assistance to enable them to access and inspect any computer owned or used by the defendant, including providing them with any required passwords;
(d) permit the Departmental Supervising Officer and the computer technician to make copies of any files or materials on any computer owned by the defendant that the Departmental Supervising Officer reasonably believes may be relevant to the management of the defendant's risk of re-offending.
23. The defendant must not change his name from Keith William Johnson without the prior approval of the Departmental supervising officer.
24. The defendant must not, without the approval of the Departmental supervising officer, change his facial appearance (including facial hair) or the colour of his hair and must not alter the length of his hair to the extent that he cannot be easily recognised.
25. If the defendant’s proposed change of appearance is approved, he must allow himself to be photographed by or on behalf of the Departmental supervising officer.
26. Should the defendant propose to enter into a relationship with a woman or man (“the other person”), which the defendant anticipates or hopes will develop into an ongoing relationship involving sexual or intimate contact, he must notify the Departmental supervising officer at the earliest opportunity. The Departmental supervising officer may disclose the defendant’s offence history to such other person if the officer is satisfied that to do so is necessary or desirable in the interests of the safety of the other person or any children of or related to that person.
27. The defendant must comply with all requirements under the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 and the Child Protection (Offenders Prohibition Orders) Act 2004 applicable to him.
28. The defendant must undergo a comprehensive assessment (and further assessments from time to time) including medical examination, pathological investigations, psychometric testing and radiological imaging to be conducted and/or arranged by the Community Forensic Mental Health Service (CFMHS) or the Area Mental Health Service (AMHS), to determine what is required for treatment, including in respect of the defendant’s potential for alcohol and/or drug abuse and potential for sex offending.
29. The defendant must accept psychological and psychiatric treatment as may be provided by an AMHS (or CFMHS or Justice Health), including counselling, psychological therapy, and must take any anti-psychotic or other psychiatric medication if and as prescribed.
30. Without limiting paragraph 29 above, the defendant must accept such medical treatment or any other therapy, if prescribed by a medical practitioner, as may be provided by CFMHS, Justice Health, an AMHS or any medical practitioner (excluding, for the purpose of the interim supervision order, any anti-libidinal and anti-psychotic medication).
31. The defendant must attend regular medical consultations, physical examinations, pathology testing, and medical imaging as directed by the Area Health Service, CFMHS or Justice Health.
32. The defendant must attend consultations with the Area Health Service or CFMHS, at such frequencies, venues and times as directed by his treating clinicians.
33. If directed by his Departmental supervising officer, the defendant must accept such psychological intervention by psychologists employed by the Department as may be offered to him, including the maintenance program provided by the Forensic Psychology Services and must participate in all such rehabilitation treatment and programs as may be directed by the Departmental supervising officer.
34. The defendant must consent to the disclosure of confidential medical information as between the general practitioner and any treating psychologist and/or psychiatrist and the Departmental supervising officer.
35. The defendant must forthwith disclose to the Departmental supervising officer the identity of any other medical or mental health practitioner that he consults.
36. The defendant must waive his right to the confidentiality of all information disclosed by him during treatment to his treating doctors (including any specialist) and any psychologist.
37. The defendant must consent to his Departmental supervising officer and other Departmental officers (including from the CCG) accessing all relevant information regarding the defendant’s progress while subject to supervision, which may include confidential medical information disclosed in the course of his treatment.
38. The defendant must agree to the sharing of all information between his Departmental supervising officer, other Departmental officers (including from the CCG), officers from Justice Health/CFMHS, the defendant’s general practitioner and any treating psychologist or psychiatrist.
39. The defendant must agree that, if the Departmental supervising officer considers it appropriate to do so, the Departmental supervising officer may provide to any prospective or actual employer of the defendant information relating to the defendant’s criminal history and may notify such prospective or actual employer that the defendant is subject to a supervision order and of the terms of the order.
0
0
1