Attorney General for the State of New South Wales v Steadman

Supreme Court of NSW|2016-02-29|Before: Adamson J

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor for NSW (Plaintiff) Legal Aid NSW (Defendant) File Number(s): 2016/41828

Introduction

By summons filed on 9 February 2016, the Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales (the plaintiff) sought an extended supervision order (ESO) under the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (the Act) in respect of the defendant for a period of three years. The plaintiff also sought an interim supervision order (ISO) against Robert Steadman (the defendant) pursuant to s 10B of the Act pending the final hearing of this matter and an order pursuant to s 7(4) of the Act appointing two psychiatrists to examine the defendant and report to the Court on the examinations.
The orders are opposed by the defendant, for whom Mr Averre appeared.

Background facts

If the threshold test in s 5B is met, the list of matters to be considered is contained in s 9. Before addressing these matters, I propose to set out a narrative derived from the evidence adduced by the plaintiff.
Although I use the term "evidence", I note that the evidence tendered by the plaintiff has not been tested, except to a very limited extent by the cross-examination of Mr Van Ryn. The defendant has not given evidence himself, or adduced any other evidence. All that is required for the purposes of deciding whether to make an ISO is that it must "appear" to the Court that the ESO will expire before the proceedings are determined (which is common ground) and "that the matters alleged in the supporting documentation would, if proved, justify the making of" an ESO: s 10A.
Accordingly, the following narrative ought be read with the qualification that it sets out the matters alleged in the supporting documentation. The facts in the narrative ought not be regarded as findings of fact, except on the limited basis required for the purposes of deciding, in accordance with s 10A, whether to make an ISO.
As the matters the subject of the narrative touch on personal details of those associated with the defendant in a personal capacity, I have decided not to use the real names of his partners, their children or associates in these reasons.

Birth and offending while a minor

The defendant was born in 1944. His criminal history began in 1953 with offences of stealing. The first conviction of present relevance was a conviction in 1958 (when he was 14) for indecent assault on a female aged six years. In 1960 he was committed to a psychiatric institution for treatment following a charge of indecent assault on an 11-year old female (when he was 16) which was replaced with a charge of common assault. Both of these offences constituted "serious sex offences" as defined by the Act.

First marriages and relationship history

The defendant was married for the first time in the 1960's and had three children. After about five years this marriage ended in divorce. He remarried in about 1980. His second wife died in 1991. At some time prior to March 1993 the defendant formed a de facto relationship with a woman, who had a daughter, AV1.
In electronically recorded interview AV1 said that in March 1993 she woke up one night in bed to discover that the defendant had his hands down the front of her underpants and was touching her on her vagina. According to AV1, he said: "If you let me touch you more I'll give you a horse for your birthday." She did not tell her mother what had happened until about June 1993. At that time her mother was planning to marry the defendant. Subsequently, and notwithstanding the charge, AV1's mother resumed her relationship with the defendant and they became engaged to be married again. The defendant was acquitted of the charge with respect to his alleged conduct in respect of AV1.
During the school holidays in September 1993, V3, one of AV1's friends, was staying overnight at AV1's place. One evening the children had been watching television in the bedroom the defendant shared with AV1's mother. AV1 had fallen asleep in the bed, woken up and moved to a bunk bed in another room, leaving V3, AV1's mother and the defendant in the same bed. V3 woke up to find the defendant's hand down her underpants and his middle finger in her vagina. V3 started screaming and hitting him, after which she went to the bunk bed where her friend, AV1, was sleeping.
As a result of these events, the defendant was charged with aggravated sexual intercourse without consent. This charge proceeded by way of indictment in the District Court in 1994. The defendant was convicted. He was sentenced by Armitage DCJ to a minimum term of two years with an additional term of eight months. His appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed.
The defendant was released to parole in on 17 November 1996 on an 8-month parole order. Although he was generally compliant with reporting (according to a pre-sentence report prepared in 2011), he refused to engage in any "interventions" in the community and maintained his innocence.
Some time after his release from gaol the defendant formed a de facto relationship with a woman who, in 1998, became his third wife. The defendant's third wife had two daughters: one, who was herself the mother of five daughters (including V4, V5 and V6)); and a second, TC, who was disabled. The defendant's third wife was not aware of the defendant's previous offending.

The index offences

At Easter 2007, the defendant and his third wife went to visit her grandchildren on the North Coast of New South Wales. They took TC with them. They stayed in a caravan at the rear of the house where the defendant's third wife's daughter lived with her family (including V4, V5 and V6).
The transcripts of recorded interviews with V4, V5 and V6 were tendered. In addition to matters that concerned the index offences, the transcripts included the girls' versions of other (uncharged) sexual acts alleged to have been perpetrated against them by the defendant as well as reference to alleged offending against other children during the same period. I allowed the transcripts of uncharged acts to be admitted into evidence, over the defendant's objection. The conduct described by the victims and alleged victims (each of whom was a young girl to whom the defendant had access through family relationships) was largely opportunistic in the context of a family situation. For example, the defendant drove one of the victims to the tip to fossick for toys and asked her not to wear underpants. He assaulted her while they were there and took photographs of her vagina and asked her to take a photograph of his erect penis.
According to V5's statement, the defendant's conduct affected several girls, as demonstrated by the following passage in the transcript: "A Um, that I know all the girls have been touched by him. Q398 All your sisters? A Yes. But mum only knew there was only three of us but there was actually five, seven seats in the car. She couldn't put all of us girls. And I know they've all been touched. And [V5's youngest sister] real close to him 'cause all [V5's youngest sister] been saying, When I grow up I, 'cause she's in love with pop. Q399 Yeah. A She says, When I grow up I want to sex poppy and marry him. Q400 And how old's [V5's youngest sister]? A Only 5."
V5 also said in the interview: "A 424 Um, um, well, well we've all been told not to tell about they've been touched. And he keeps on saying um, I won't tell any, I won't tell anyone things that you tell me which I haven't told him anything."
The defendant was arrested on 11 July 2007 and remained in custody pending his trial.
On 22 October 2008 the Director of Public Prosecutions presented an indictment in which the defendant was charged with the following counts: "1. Between 28 February, 2007 and 2 May 2007 at P2 in the State of New South Wales did assault V4 and at the time of such assault committed an act of indecency on V4 a child then under the age of 10 years, namely 9 years. 2. Between 28 February, 2007 and 2 May 2007 at P2 in the State of New South Wales did assault V5 and at the time of such assault committed an act of indecency on V5 a child then under the age of 16 years, namely 10 years. 3. Between 28 February, 2007 and 2 May 2007 at P2 in the State of New South Wales did assault V6 and at the time of such assault committed an act of indecency on V6 a child then under the age of 10 years, namely 9 years."
The defendant pleaded guilty to the three counts. The following extract is taken from the statement of facts: "7. The incidents detailed below came to light as a result of the following sequence of events: a. During the holiday period V5 was looking at pictures on the offender's computer and saw pictures of her younger sister V4 engaging in inappropriate activity with the offender. b. V5 then approached her sister V4 telling her what she had seen and V4 them [sic] complained to her of what the offender had been doing to her. c. A few days after the offender had left the children's place, V5 and V4 then told their mother what had happened. d. V3 - 5M at first confronted the offender and her mother about the children's allegations and the offender said that the children had made it up. e. DOCS were contacted by V3 - 5M and statements were then obtained by the Police. Count One - S. 61M(2) Indecent assault of a person aged under 10 8. This alleged offence involves the complainant, V4 when she was aged 9. The offence involved the offender touching, or playing with, the vaginal area of the complainant with his hand or hands whilst on a trip to the P2 dump with the offender. Count Two - s. 61M(1) - indecent assault of a person aged under 16 years 9. The complainant, V5 was ten years of age. The offender touched V5 on her vagina when she was sitting on a chair facing the offender's computer whilst her parents were not present. Count Three - S. 61M(2) Indecent assault of a person aged under 10 10. The offender had V6 then aged 9 years accompany him in his van to the P2 tip at which location he pushed her down so that she was lying on the seat. The offender then fondled her genital area.
A further matter (possession of child pornography contrary to s 91H(3) of the Crimes Act) was included on the Form 1 in the following terms: "Expert Police examined the seized hard drive and a number of images were retrieved, including a picture of the offender's penis with a child's hand on it."
An offender intake data form in respect of the defendant (which was filled in when he was admitted to Wellington Gaol in February 2009) recorded much of the relationship history set out above. On 23 February 2009 he underwent a Static-99 assessment (an instrument designed to help predict sexual and violent recidivism in sexual offenders) and scored 6, which placed him in the high risk category.
In April 2009 the defendant was assessed by Professor Greenberg, a forensic psychiatrist, who prepared a report for the sentence hearing on 6 April 2009. Professor Greenberg opined that the defendant probably suffered from paedophilic disorder and that he would benefit from Custody-Based Intensive Treatment (CUBIT).
On 17 April 2009 Judge Williams imposed a sentence of five years and five months imprisonment with a total non-parole period of four years and two months, to date from 11 July 2007, being the date on which he was taken into custody.
In the remarks on sentence, Williams DCJ said, of the defendant's third wife: "23. [The defendant's] wife during a telephone interview stated, despite his plea of guilty, that he was not guilty of any offences against her grandchildren and if there was any inappropriate behaviour at all, it was the fault of her daughter and grandchildren. She stated that the children were overtly sexual in nature and often masturbated for attention. This attitude to the offending by [the defendant's] wife is of serious [sic] to the service as his primary support within the community is from her and he has limited contact with other family members. Discussions with his family indicated [the defendant] has been less than forthcoming about the agreed facts in this matter."
The sentencing judge also said: "32. What is of particular concern in the present case is firstly [the defendant's] previous history of sex offending and secondly that on this occasion [the defendant] was apparently engaged in taking inappropriate photographs of the victims and keeping them on his computer, part of presumably some sort of plan to interfere with them. Apart from the question of general deterrence, individual deterrence would appear to be a significant and necessary component of any sentence imposed. … 34. It is of concern that like so many such offenders, [the defendant] has been reluctant to accept responsibility as has indeed his wife, for his actions and to recognise and accept the need for intervention if he is not to offend again."
The defendant's wife continued to support the defendant throughout most of his sentence. However, in about early 2011, TC told her mother that the defendant had been sexually abusing her for years, including before they were married. This led to their divorce on 10 May 2011. A probation and parole pre-release report dated 29 June 2011 said: "His former wife advised this revelation was the turning point for her in her attitudes to [the defendant], making her see a pattern in his sexual offending and making her accept his guilt in the current offences against her grandchildren. Enquiries indicate the [defendant's third wife's] change of mindset has enabled her to reconcile with her son and daughter-in-law, who are the parents of his victim."
The report concluded: "[The defendant] has a history of sexual offending against children. He is currently in custody for an offence against his former step daughter. Since being in custody his marriage has dissolved following further allegations of sexual offending against another female relative, the outcome of which is uncertain. He has no identifiable pro social supports in the community at this time and has no suitable post release accommodation. In addition to this [the defendant] maintains his innocence in relation to his sexual offending and is resistant to engaging in appropriate intervention for his offence, most particularly the CUBIT program. Without appropriate post release accommodation and his failure to acknowledge or address his offending, [the defendant] poses a risk to the community if released at this time. Therefore, his release to Parole is at this time not recommended."

The first application for an ESO

On 21 June 2011 a risk assessment report was prepared for the purpose of determining whether an application for an ESO ought be made under the Act, as the defendant's sentence was due to expire on 10 December 2012. The assessment was conducted by Patrick Sheehan (senior specialist psychologist) and Danielle Matsuo (Acting Director Sex and Violent Offender Programs). The defendant was assessed as remaining in the moderate-high risk category of sexual offending relative to other male sexual offenders.
On 10 September 2012 the defendant was released from custody on parole. At first, he resided in a Community Offender Support Program (COSP) facility. On 19 September 2012 he was registered under the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 (NSW).
On 22 November 2012 the defendant was charged with failing to comply with his reporting conditions under the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act as he had a mobile phone with internet access which he had not disclosed to police. He explained that he thought that he was complying with the relevant reporting condition when he told police that he had a new phone. There was no allegation that he had in fact used the Internet for illicit purposes.
In 2012, prior to the defendant's release, orders were obtained from this Court, appointing Drs Allnutt and Roberts to examine the defendant and report to Court. Both experts considered him to pose a high risk of sex offending. Dr Robert's expressed his opinion in the following summary: "In my opinion, of those people who fall into the category of people being at moderate to high risk of engaging in future offences of a sexual nature, Mr Steadman would be considered to be at the higher end of that range. Individual factors which may be amenable to change through therapy or behavioural modification are less likely to prove amenable to change in Mr Steadman's case. Having regard for the fact that he is either insightless, in psychological denial or dishonest with respect to his offending behaviour, he is unlikely to perceive benefit in restrictions placed upon him with the aim to moderate risk and he is not expected to avail himself of therapeutic opportunities aimed at moderating risk. His level of risk is therefore not expected to diminish in the way that might be expected in an offender who has acknowledged his propensity to aberrant behaviour and sees logic in restrictions placed on movement or contact and would seek to participate in therapy aimed at mitigating future risk."
Dr Roberts opined that an ESO of the maximum duration was called for. He noted that the defendant had not availed himself of any therapy and was "insightless". Dr Roberts also observed of the defendant that: "He has a propensity to abrogate responsibility for his behaviour and consistently assert that the allegations against him have been unfounded."
The plaintiff's first application for an ESO against the defendant was made in 2013 and was granted by Button J who made an ESO against him which commenced on 7 March 2013 for a term of three years: Attorney General for the State of New South Wales v Steadman [2013] NSWSC 170. In those proceedings the defendant did not oppose the making of an ESO for that duration; the plaintiff contended that it should be for the maximum duration of five years. His Honour was satisfied that the defendant had a "chronic tendency to commit sexual offences against female children that has existed for well over 50 years" ([68]). His Honour also said, at [72]: "I consider that there is certainly a risk to the community that the defendant may inveigle himself into sustained contact with children, either directly or (perhaps more likely) indirectly by way of, for example, a relationship of friendship or affection with an older person with grandchildren, and take the opportunity to commit serious sexual offences against them."

The conditions of the first ESO

Of present relevance the first ESO contained the following conditions: "[6] The defendant must notify the Departmental Supervising Officer of any change to the schedule at least 24 hours in advance, unless a shorter period is approved by the Departmental Supervising Officer. . . . [19] Should the defendant enter into a relationship with another person ("the other person"), 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 the 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 child of or related to that person, or who from time to time be in that person's care, custody or control."
Condition 22 provided that the defendant was not to approach or have contact with a child under the age of 16 years, or attend certain nominated locations such as schools, playgrounds and day-care centres, unless he has prior written permission of the Department and is in the presence of an "appropriate adult", being a person previously approved in writing by the Department for the purposes of the condition.

The defendant's conduct during the period of the first ESO from March 2013 to present

From at least 21 April 2013, the defendant began to complain about the anklet he was required to wear as a condition of the ESO (to provide continuous monitoring of his whereabouts). He said that it was not working for various reasons. The case notes (sometimes referred to as OIMS - Offender Integrated Management System - notes) prepared by Community Corrections officers are redolent with issues concerning the anklet, its charging and its operation. Such complaints have been a consistent theme and have been characterised as "diversionary tactics", in that they are raised to thwart attempts by therapists to engage in a deeper discussion about the reasons for his offending behaviour and his proclivities. For the initial period of his ESO he was required to submit movement schedules to the Department of Corrective Services setting out where he would be at any given time.
On 23 April 2013 the defendant attended his first appointment at Forensic Psychology Services (FPS), as required by a condition of his ESO. His psychologist was Craig Baird. From the outset, the defendant consistently and persistently maintained that he had been falsely accused and wrongly convicted. From that time onwards he gave elaborate explanations as to how and why he had been wronged.
On 20 May 2013, in the Waverley Local Court, the defendant was acquitted of the charge of failing to comply with reporting conditions (arising from the charge in November 2012 referred to above).
In a counselling session on 24 May 2013, the defendant raised that he suffered from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) as a result of assistance he provided for the Granville train disaster as a reason for his aversion to attending appointments in the city or travelling by train in any circumstances. At several consultations it became the main topic of discussion. On 22 July 2013 Mr Baird recorded that, although the defendant asserted that he had been diagnosed with PTSD, an earlier report had noted that there was no official documentation to that effect. It was decided that he ought be referred to another psychologist with a view to determining the existence (or otherwise) of PTSD and appropriate treatment.
In August 2013 the defendant moved out of the COSP facility to a private address in Rossmore. On 20 August 2013 the Community Corrections officers conducted an unscheduled home visit at the defendant's new residence. There was discussion about the defendant's inadequate response to therapy. The following was also noted: "- The offender then spoke about how the only reason he even went to custody was because the Police offered him a really good deal to reduce the sentence from 15 years to 2 years in goal [sic] but only gave him 10 minutes to decide. The offender now believes they only did this because they did not have a case against him and if he had better legal advise [sic] he would have handled things differently. - The offender went on at length to discuss the issues with legal aid in his case, the Police and Prosecution, the strength of the witnesses and Corrective Services. The offender appears to blame everybody around him for his circumstances and holds no accountability for his own actions and decision making."
When Community Corrections officers visited the defendant at home they noticed that in relatively close proximity to the granny flat where the defendant lived there was a pool which was used by children (a fact which he did not disclose to the officers). Indeed, the pool was about 20ms from the vegetable patch which the defendant looked after. This led to the placement of an electronic monitoring boundary and a written direction (given on 13 October 2013) that he not associate with the neighbours.
On 13 October 2013 the defendant was interviewed at his home by a Community Corrections officer. The note about the portion of the interview which related to the defendant's offending history read: "During the interview the offender made a reference to his offending and indicated that he was innocent of all charges. The offender was asked if he denies that he has ever committed a sexual offence against a child. The offender replied with "I have never done anything against a child that would be considered illegal" adding "all I ever done was to bathe his children and grandchildren, something that his wife also done so why is she not in this situation". For clarity the offender was asked the same question, has [sic] ever committed a sexual offence against a child he replied 'No'"
In October 2013 the defendant's landlord, Tony (not his real name), approached him to renovate a nearby property in return for reduced rent. The two became friends.
On 9 December 2013 Mr Baird noted that the defendant continued to be "fundamentally opposed to openly engage in treatment". At the conclusion of the consultation, Mr Baird told the defendant that he would not continue working with him if he did not focus on the treatment.
On 16 December 2013 the Community Corrections officers visited the defendant and met Tony. After Tony left, the defendant confirmed that he had not told him that he was subject to an ESO. The defendant told Community Corrections officers that he could not recall if Tony had any grandchildren. However, the officers later learned (in about February 2014) that Tony not only had three grandchildren but they lived with their father next door to the defendant's residence. On 16 December 2013 the defendant told the officers that he would "go to the grave" claiming his innocence. He blamed the "poor legal aid team and two bad barristers for the fact that he was found guilty".
On 10 January 2014 Mr Baird noted, in the clinical notes of his consultations with the defendant: "Bob wished to stress the point that he has only been accused of sexual offending by close family members and as a consequence of this can't understand why I'm asking him to develop a self-management plan as he has no contact with close family members anymore. I reminded Bob that one accusation was made by a stranger during a break and enter. Bob acknowledged this but added that he was only 14-15 years old at the time, adding that all his "adult" accusations have been made by family members."
By February 2014, the friendship between the defendant and his landlord had developed to the point where Tony, who was unaware of the defendant's history or the ESO, invited the defendant to his home. On at least some of those occasions, Tony's grandchildren were present. The Community Corrective officers told the defendant that he must either disclose his history and ESO to Tony, or move house. Eventually, on 7 February 2014, the defendant was given a written direction to disclose to Tony that he was subject to an ESO. On 9 February 2014 the defendant informed Tony of this matter. The Community Corrections officer spoke with Tony directly to make sure that he understood the potential risks to his grandchildren. When the officer spoke with Tony on 13 February 2014, he told them that he did not have the "heart to evict [the defendant]", in part because Tony was grateful for the renovations the defendant had performed on his properties, including the one to which the defendant was about to move.
In February 2014 the defendant began seeing Raymond Hudd, psychologist, in lieu of Mr Baird for the purposes of obtaining treatment for PTSD. At about this time the defendant moved to the property in Austral which he had been renovating for Tony. The defendant constructed an aviary on the property in which he housed several birds, including chickens.
As is revealed by the supporting documentation, the sessions with Mr Hudd were not productive. Indeed, in March 2014, Mr Hudd told Community Corrections that the defendant was the "most difficult sex offender he has been required to deal with".
In April 2014 a Community Corrections officer made an unscheduled visit to the defendant's home. In the course of the discussion about treatment, the defendant's attitude to his offending was raised. The officer made the following note: "The offender became confrontational talking over and swearing at the author. The offender stated again and again that "you will never get me to say I did it" (meaning the sex offending), the offender was reminded that he did as he plead guilty (index offence) the offender stated something along the lines of he took a deal he did not plead guilty."
In early September 2014 a Community Corrections Officer suggested that the defendant might socialise at a club, either the local bingo club or a bird breeders club. He mentioned that he used to sing for the elderly in their retirement homes and he would consider this.
On 7 October 2014, following discussions between Corrective Services and FPS, approval was given for the defendant to join a local bowling club. According to Kay (not her real name), she and the defendant met in October 2014 at Karaoke in Wallacia. Kay looked after four of her grandchildren on a regular and extended basis, including two girls under ten years of age. Three of the grandchildren whom Kay looked after were the children of her son Bill (not his real name), who worked full-time and needed his mother's assistance to look after his children, including before and after school, as his own marriage had ended.
On 13 October 2014, Mr Hudd contacted Mr Baird to inform him that the sessions with the defendant had ended and that he did not consider there to be any benefit in any future sessions. The note recorded: "He [Mr Hudd] stated that he believes the offender may be suffering from PTSD however he had not been able to administer any formal testing as the offender will not divulge any information about this childhood or the offence. He stated the offender is very suspicious and often goes on a rant and tangents. He stated that he has attempted to administer formal PTSD testing however the offender has not completed testing and will not complete the tests."
The defendant and Kay soon became good friends and a relationship between them developed around Christmas 2014. Notwithstanding the terms of condition 19 of the first ESO, the defendant did not disclose this relationship to Community Corrections.
On 2 January 2015 the defendant made an unscheduled deviation to Kay's residence, which then became the subject of an exclusion zone.
On 23 and 30 January 2015 the defendant deviated from his scheduled movements by visiting Kay's home.
On 1 February 2015 the defendant was seen affectionately kissing a woman, who was later identified as Kay. She waited in the defendant's car while he went to Aldi. He subsequently drove her to her home (a movement which was not included in his schedule of movements) and then returned to his own residence. The Community Corrections officers followed him home and noted that there were signs of a female in the spare bedroom (women's shoes under the bed, a pink dressing gown).
On 2 February 2015 a Community Corrections officer visited the defendant at home. The officer noticed cigarette butts in an ashtray, which aroused his suspicions as he knew that the defendant did not smoke. He asked the defendant about a deviation to his scheduled movements on the previous day. He said that he had visited a friend whom he had met at karaoke and that she was a "friend". He gave her first name but refused to provide her last name. He admitted that she had come to his home but said that she had come with a number of friends from karaoke. The defendant was reminded of the terms of condition [19] of the ESO, to which he responded that he and this woman were "just friends".
On 2 February 2015 the defendant was given a written warning about the deviations from his scheduled movements on 23 January, 30 January and 1 February 2015. It was noted that he was detected at Kay's address.
In February and March 2015 the defendant and Kay were sighted together regularly. For example, he was seen with her in the centre of the Trash and Treasure Markets at Camden Valley Way. Kay was seated in a wheelchair with her foot bandaged and the defendant was pushing her around. Although the defendant was regularly questioned by Community Corrections officers about this relationship he maintained that they were just friends with common interests. The defendant did not, at that stage, mention Kay's grandchildren.
On 8 March 2015 the defendant was asked why he had left his property earlier that day without notifying the electronic monitoring unit. He said that he had had friends to stay for the weekend and they had gone to the markets that morning and he had to take them home. He told Community Corrections that he knew that it was the wrong thing to do but he "felt he had no choice as the friend does not know that he is monitored". On 9 March 2015 he was issued with a final written warning regarding the deviation from his schedule.
On 13 March 2015 Community Corrections officers visited the defendant at home. Kay was sitting on the front porch, smoking. The defendant told the officers, who observed a walking frame, that Kay had Parkinson's and diabetes. The defendant continued to deny the relationship. He informed the officers that although he had not yet told Kay about the ESO, he would do so.
On 21 March 2015 Community Corrections officers spoke to the defendant who was again seen with Kay. The defendant told the officers that Kay did not even know that he had been in custody. He also reported that she had many problems and that he really only saw her on the weekend as she minded her grandchildren during the week. He denied that he had visited her place. The notes recorded: "He continued to talk about how hard done by he was and had been due for a review and was perhaps going to let her know after that. He stated that he was thinking that he may have electronic monitoring reduced/ anklet off and author asked if perhaps he thought he would never have to tell. He did not reply. Concluded the lengthy discussion with informing the offender that perhaps it is time to inform his friend. Offender was not very happy."
On 24 March 2015 the defendant told the Community Corrections officers that he had told Kay that he was on an ESO and that "she understands about his circumstances". On 29 March 2015 the Community Corrections officers spoke with Kay. The notes record that "she did not have any issue and would continue to support the offender" and "she is aware offender is not to have any contact with children unless supervised". She asked them whether the defendant could come to her place as she "has some health issues and may require the assistance of the offender".
In April 2015 it was mooted that the defendant be permitted to attend Kay's residence; however, this proposal was not approved by the Community Corrections manager on the basis that Kay's son, Bill, was unaware of the defendant's circumstances (prior convictions and ESO) and there was a possibility that Bill's children (Kay's grandchildren) would be there. However, approval was given for him to spend the weekend at her place. The defendant was given a written direction dated 8 April 2015 that he was not to approach or have contact with a child under the age of 16 years, or attend certain nominated locations such as playgrounds, day-care centres, unless he had prior written permission of the Department and was in the presence of an "appropriate adult" being a person previously approved in writing by the Department for the purposes of the condition.
On 26 April 2015 Community Corrections officers encountered the defendant in Casula Mall. He was pushing Kay in a wheelchair. Kay explained that she needed to be pushed in a wheelchair because her left leg was in constant pain.
On 5 May 2015 Kay spoke to Community Corrections officers and expressed a wish that the defendant be permitted to attend her home on her birthday and mother's day. Both visits were approved. The notes record: "- [Kay] spoke of her knowledge of the offender's past and claimed that she is like a mother to the children as the biological mother has left due to relationship issues. [Kay] assured manager and writer that she would not let anything happen to the children. [Kay] spoke of how the granddaughter never leaves her side and the two boys are always with the father [Bill]. They are also at school during the weekdays. ESO manager raised the issue that the father of the children [Bill] is currently unaware of [the defendant's] past offending and hence approval cannot be given for the offender to visit [Kay's] house at any time. Visitation to [Kay's] house must be prior approved to which both [Kay] and [the defendant] stated they understood."
In May 2015 the requirement that the defendant submit schedules of his movements to the Community Corrections was lifted. On 24 May 2015 Community Corrections officers made an unscheduled visit to the defendant's home. They found him in Kay's company and were told that she had just been diagnosed with cancer. The couple informed the officers that they intended to marry in a few months. On 26 May 2015 the defendant was given a written direction in similar terms to the earlier one that he not associate with children except with prior Departmental consent and in the presence of an "appropriate adult". He was also directed that he was permitted only to attend Kay's residence in order to pick her up and drop her off as required but that he was not to stay there.
On 1 June 2015 the defendant confirmed that he had not yet told Kay's son about the ESO.
On 7 June 2015 Kay told Community Corrections officers that she was having difficulty performing household chores as Bill had been away and that the defendant was helping her with these. When Community Corrections officers visited the defendant at home on 21 June 2015, Kay told them that they had set a wedding date of 2 October 2015 and that they were "just looking for the right time" to tell her son of the defendant's antecedents and his ESO. On 5 July 2015 Community Corrections officers encountered the defendant and Kay at Casula Mall. She told them that her granddaughter was doing a "child protection awareness course" at school and Kay "spoke of the benefits of this".
On 15 July 2015 the defendant told Community Corrections officers that they were no closer to telling Kay's son, Bill, due to his "personal issues". A summary Community Corrections note dated 25 July 2015 recorded: "CP approved. Noted that Robert's relationship with [Kay] is serious and the two are considering getting married later this year. Given that she has young grand children living with her, this is concerning regarding access. It would appear that [Kay's] son (father of the children) is still unaware of [the defendant's] offending history and thus he [the defendant] cannot be at the home when the children are there. This needs to be closely monitored to ensure that he is not trying to linger around the home to have access to the children. Ongoing contact with his partner is to continue to gauge his behaviour. Noted that she is currently unwell and he must understand that he cannot go to her home whenever he feels she requires his assistance. Noted completion report prepared. Continue as outlined."
The case note for 26 July 2015 recorded in part: "Continues to deny his offence and claims he only pled guilty as he believed he would have been released as time served. He has made mention on several occasions that he believed legal aid was the cause of his incarceration. - Programs and services His response to programs has been poor and he has not attended or completed FPD or CUBIT whilst in gaol. He claimed PTSD after being involved in the Granville train disaster however nil records of him being involved exist. He has attended private psychology (PTSD) however this ceased due to psychologist stating noting [sic] more could be done with the offender due to his negative attitude towards intervention. During his time in custody and in the community he has maintained his innocence."
The case note for 30 July 2015 recorded that the defendant needed to travel to the Family Court in Armidale in August 2015 for the purposes of a property settlement with his ex-wife (his third wife).
On 30 August 2015 the defendant was informed that the plaintiff was intending to apply for a further ESO when his current ESO expires. He was told that the reasons for the application included: his continued denial of the offence; his refusal to engage in counselling; and the concern about his relationship with a woman who had young grandchildren in her care and whose son (Bill, the children's father) was unaware of the defendant's offences or ESO.
On 3 October 2015 the defendant and Kay married.
On 6 October 2015 a risk assessment report on the defendant was prepared by Samuel Ardasinski and Danielle Matsuo, forensic psychologists. They identified the following risk factors: sexual deviance; denial and resultant problems with self-awareness and insight; refusal to participate in treatment; social isolation; and being in a relationship which may give the defendant access to female children. They concluded: "CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Mr Steadman is a 71-year old man whose risk of sexual reoffending is estimated to be in the Moderate-High risk category relative to other men who have offended sexually. It was further determined that, in certain high-risk situations, Mr Steadman's risk of future sexual violence would increase and that he may pose a significant sexual violence risk if left unattended with female children. It is understood that Mr Steadman has entered into a new intimate relationship, and that there is an 8-year old female grandchild living in the same house as his fiancée, along with her adult son and two male children. While under supervision during the course of his Order, Mr Steadman has a condition that he never be left alone in his fiancée's home, and that he is always in the company of his fiancée whilst visiting that residence on weekends. This is because the children's father is, to date, unaware of Mr Steadman's offence history and therefore the potential risk he poses."
As referred to above, the case notes prepared by Community Corrections officers contain many references to the defendant's complaints about the anklet and, in particular, the need to charge it and difficulties with charging. A note dated 14 October 2015 recorded: "- It would appear that this habitual complaining of the electronic equipment may be a tactic that the offender uses to steer the conversation away from the issues that need to be monitored. The offender was asked about the health of his partner and reported that further tests have been conducted such as an MRI and it would appear that she does not have bone cancer. He further reported that she has been busy looking after her three grandchildren as her son continues to work long hours with his employment."
A further risk management report dated 20 October 2015 was prepared by Mr Van Ryn, a Community Corrections officer responsible for the defendant. Mr Van Ryn noted that, as at the date of the report, Kay did not believe that the defendant was guilty of any offences and shared his view that he was wrongly accused. He described their living arrangements: they live separately during the week, while she has care of the grandchildren (before and after school) but live together on the weekend. At that stage they had not disclosed either his history or the ESO to her family. He noted: "The offender's partner has stated that she will not leave her grandchildren in the company of the offender without another adult being present however this assertion must be balanced against the fact that she also supports Mr Steadman in his belief that he was wrongly accused of child sex offences and that he is innocent."
When addressing the risk of future offending, Mr Van Ryn noted that: "Mr Steadman's wife's refusal to divulge the offender's criminal history and current situation to the parents of her grandchildren raise significant concerns that even when in company of other adults, these adults would not be able to adequately assess risks and take preventative action as required."
On 24 October 2015 Mr Van Ryn conducted an unscheduled home visit to the defendant. Kay was also there. Mr Van Ryn raised with the defendant that the electronic monitoring revealed that he had spent more than an hour at Kay's residence on several occasions notwithstanding that permission extended only to dropping her off and collecting her. The defendant said that such quick intervals would tend to raise the suspicions of Kay's son, who lived at the house. Mr Van Ryn noted: "Mr Steadman was informed that this decision will not be reviewed until [Kay's son] has been informed of his offences so that he can make an informed decision as to who has access to his children. Both the offender and [Kay] were displeased with this direction, however stated that they would comply. [Kay] asked whether she was considered to be a responsible adult and was informed since her talk with the psychologist attached to the ESO team that there were questions in regards to whether she would be objective about the risk posed by the offender. [Kay] stated that she thinks that there has been a misunderstanding and that she believes her partner accepts the charges however believes in second chances. The offender continued to protest his innocence. . ."
On 26 October 2015 Community Corrections received a call from the Department of Community Services (DOCS) in which DOCS expressed its concern about the defendant's attending Kay's residence at all and wanted him to be directed not to attend. Community Corrections directed the defendant not to attend Kay's residence. The case note recorded that the defendant became very upset and accused the officer of denying him his right to see his wife. He was told that he was not permitted to see her at home or when she was around her grandchildren and that the reason for this was that he and his wife refused to inform the parents of the children of his offending history. The defendant became angry and ended the phone call.
On 29 October 2015 Community Corrections decided to allow the defendant to attend Kay's house for a few minutes to pick her up and drop her off. It was noted that the defendant had signed up with the Mt Pritchard Community Club and that there was a children's gym and a swimming pool on the premises.
On 5 November 2015 the defendant told Community Corrections that he intended to tell Kay's son about his offending history and the ESO that day but he wanted permission to have the discussion at her house. Permission was refused. Before the disclosure to Bill occurred, Department of Family and Community Services (FACS) (the successor to DOCS) independently contacted Bill and told him that the defendant was a person of interest to them because of his long history of harming young children. Bill told FACS that he was unaware of the history and that now that he knew he would not allow the defendant to have any contact with his children. Bill also said that he would ask his mother (Kay) about her knowledge of her new husband's (the defendant's) offences.
Bill told his former partner (the mother of the children) about the defendant's offending. She then told Bill's brother, who went straight to Kay's house and told her to divorce the defendant straight away or he would have nothing more to do with her. Kay chose to continue her relationship with the defendant; as a consequence, she became estranged from one of her sons (Bill's brother).
A Community Corrections case note dated 22 November 2015 said: "It appears that he has groomed his new partner to believe that he is innocent of his most recent crimes and he has not divulged his paedophilia behaviours and offences throughout his life to her. It appears his recent behaviours are similar to previous relationships where he has accessed and offended against his partner's children and grandchildren."
A Community Corrections case note dated 25 November 2015 recorded that the defendant blamed Community Corrections for the delayed disclosure to Bill because they would not permit it to occur at Kay's house. When the defendant was reminded that the need for such a disclosure had been raised five months previously, he blamed Kay and said that she wanted to defer disclosure because her son was already under too much stress from work.
The defendant sought approval to attend Kay's house on Christmas Day. Bill confirmed that he would ensure that his children were not left in the defendant's company at any time during the day. The defendant was granted permission to attend from 10am to 2pm and was directed not to have any physical contact with the children.
The defendant and Kay wanted to travel to western New South Wales in early 2016 and stay in caravan parks along the route. Permission for him to go was refused on the grounds that Kay had not been approved as an "appropriate adult" for the purpose of supervision around children.
On 17 February 2016 Mr Van Ryn interviewed Kay at her home for the purposes of risk assessment. She was asked to describe her health problems, which she confirmed did not presently require hospital admission. She said that she did not take naps during the day. When asked what her attitude was to the defendant's offending behaviour she said (according to the OIMS note): "[Kay] stated that she believed [the defendant] was guilty. She is aware that Robert has been convicted of child relates [sic] offences on more one [sic] occasion. Has found information of past offences on google. When probed further [Kay] stated that she knew [the defendant] had been convicted of raping children (intercourse) and that he had touched children inappropriately. [Kay] Further [sic] stated that she would kill [the defendant] if he did anything to her kids (meaning her grandchildren)."
Kay also informed Mr Van Ryn that Bill will be moving with his fiancée to Newcastle in December 2016 and that she intended to move in with the defendant when that happened. She said that the defendant wanted to move to Gilgandra but that she wanted to stay in the local area near her doctors and the hospital.
Mr Van Ryn also interviewed Bill on the same occasion as he was home at the time. When asked about the defendant's criminal history Bill said: "Overall it's bloody disgusting you can look it up on google there are over 20 offences, it fills an A4 page. [Bill] says that he believes [the defendant] is guilty and that he would never level [sic, let] him alone with his children at any time."

Whether an extended supervision order ought be made

Whether the defendant is a "high risk sex offender"

The defendant meets the definition of "sex offender" in s 4 of the Act, having been sentenced for a "serious sex offence" (aggravated indecent assault on a child under the age of 10). The sentence imposed was five years and five months with a total non-parole period of four years and two months.
In these circumstances he is a "high risk sex offender" if I am satisfied to a high degree of probability that the offender poses an unacceptable risk of committing a serious sex offence if he is not kept under supervision: s 5B(2).
The ESO granted by Button J will expire at midnight on 6 March 2016, before these proceedings are determined.

Section 9: the matters to be taken into account

I shall address each of the matters in s 9(3) in turn, in so far as each is relevant. However, I propose to address safety of the community (s 9(3)(a)) in a compendious way at the end since many of the other factors also concern this matter.

Section 9(3)(c) and (d): assessments prepared by other psychiatrists or psychologists and statistical likelihood of re-offending

As referred to above, the defendant was assessed by reference to Static-99 in 2009, at which time he was assessed as being moderate to high risk. I note that he was able to answer affirmatively to the question whether he had ever lived with a lover for at least two years. While in other cases an affirmative answer to that question may properly be regarded as reducing the risk, in the present case I do not regard it as having that effect because of the defendant's pattern of offending (which is addressed in more detail below in the context of s 9(3)(h)).
In June 2012 Mr Sheehan considered the defendant to fall within the moderate to high risk category and did not regard his increasing age as mitigating the risk in any material way. Dr Allnutt in 2012 considered him to be at high risk for serious sexual recidivism. The most recent report, of Mr Ardanski and Ms Matsuo, sets out their opinion that the defendant's present situation is "high risk" and that although the risk of re-offending is "moderate", his lack of treatment during the ESO and the similarity between his current personal situation and the previous context in which his offending occurred presented a high risk.

Section 9(3)(d1): any report prepared by Corrective Services as to the extent to which the defendant can reasonably and practicably be managed in the community and s 9(3)(f): his level of compliance with parole conditions and the first ESO

The defendant was regarded as generally compliant with reporting for parole in the period from his release to parole on 17 November 1996 (according to a pre-sentence report prepared in 2011), although he refused to engage in any "interventions" in the community and maintained his innocence.
As to his level of compliance with the ESO, the lengthy recitation of a narrative largely derived from the OIMS notes provides a picture of the defendant as a man who resents any management or intervention by Community Corrections. He showed himself on occasions to be prepared to mislead the officers who were responsible for his monitoring. For example, he appears to have deliberately downplayed his relationship with Kay until such a time as he had engendered such hope for the future and affection in her (as well as a degree of physical dependency, having regard to her difficulties with mobility) that she married. Moreover, the defendant prevaricated for many months about telling Bill, who eventually learned the truth only when FACS told him.
Although the defendant has been subject to electronic monitoring, he has frequently complained about the device, allowed it to exhaust the charge and not answered his mobile phone when officers have called.
Mr Van Ryn's report referred to these matters as well as the Community Corrections' concerns about his living arrangements and his continual denial of the offending conduct and the need to manage the risk. He has been compliant to an extent with the ESO and has not been "breached". However, he has sought to test the boundaries of several conditions, particularly those that relate directly to the risk (failure to inform Community Corrections of his relationship with Kay; deferring telling Kay or Bill of the ESO or his offending conduct; and visiting Kay's house and staying for longer than permitted).

Section 9(3)(e): participation in treatment or rehabilitation programs and the level of the offender's participation

The defendant attended FPS consultations with Mr Baird and also attended Mr Hudd to obtain treatment for PTSD. His participation was indifferent in both. He appears to have no insight into the effect of his criminal conduct on others and refuses to acknowledge either his guilt or his responsibility. There was no active engagement with the therapy. I accept the clinicians' reports that he engaged in diversionary tactics on a regular basis. His preparedness to blame others (his legal team, his family, etc.) does not augur well for any prospect of rehabilitation.

Section 9(3)(g): the level of the defendant's compliance with obligations under Child Protection legislation

The only matter relied on by the plaintiff was the defendant's alleged failure to comply with reporting conditions relating to a new phone with Internet capacity in 2012. He was acquitted of the charge. There is, accordingly, nothing to suggest that he has not complied with his obligations under this legislation.

Section 9(3)(h): the defendant's criminal history and pattern of offending

The defendant's criminal history as set out more fully in the narrative above spans several decades. Age does not appear to have diminished his sexual urge. He remains lacking in insight.
The defendant's past offending has involved his obtaining access to young girls through (age-appropriate) women with whom he has been in apparently intimate relationships. Such women have been either the mother (in the case of the earlier offending in 1993) or the grandmother (in the case of the index offences in 2007) of the victims.
The children under the care of their mother or grandmother (as the case may be) appear to have been lulled into a false sense of security by their mother or grandmother's relationship with the defendant. With respect to the 1993 offences, the reason V3 was in the same bed as the defendant was that her friend, AV1, had been comfortable to watch television there as her mother (the defendant's then partner) was also in the bed. In relation to the offences in 2007, the defendant was apparently able to engage in conduct (not all of which was charged) with several young girls in the context of a family environment where the defendant was called "Poppy" by his then wife's grandchildren.
Although no judgment can be made whether the defendant entered into the relationships with the mother or grandmother of his victims with a view to obtaining access to young girls to whom he was sexually attracted, this has been the effect of such past relationships. He has recently married Kay, a woman who has caring responsibilities for her grandchildren, and who, though the grandmother, effectively stands in the position of mother. But for the ESO and the constant surveillance and enforcement of its conditions by the Community Corrections officers, the defendant's relationship with Kay would have given him unfettered access to young girls: those in her care and any of their friends who might visit them.
It is also noteworthy that the defendant has demonstrated a substantial capacity to affect the judgment of the women with whom he is intimate. His third wife preferred to lose contact with her daughter and grandchildren and align herself with the defendant, notwithstanding his plea of guilty to serious sexual offences involving them. It was only when TC, her own daughter, told her of the sexual assaults which the defendant had perpetrated against her, that the defendant's third wife was prepared to acknowledge that his claims of innocence were false.
Kay, his fourth wife, was induced to believe that the defendant was innocent of all of the offences with which he had been convicted (and to some of which he had pleaded guilty). For a significant period she preferred to keep her own son, Bill, in the dark about the defendant's criminal history, than disclose it and jeopardise her own relationships both with Bill and with the defendant. Kay has lost contact with her second son (Bill's brother) as a consequence of her continued association with the defendant, on whom she depends for physical assistance and support. In the course of Mr Van Ryn's interview on 17 February 2016 (less than a fortnight before the preliminary hearing) Kay indicated that she accepted that he was guilty of the offences for which he has been convicted. However, she has earlier said that she believes in "second chances", which provides little assurance that she would be willing to control the defendant, even if she were able to do so.

Section 9(3)(h1): the views of the sentencing court

The concerns of Williams DCJ are set out above. They relate principally to the defendant's lack of insight, pattern of offending and ability to groom his partner to take his side in the face of what might be regarded as overwhelming evidence (including his plea of guilty).

Section 9(3)(i): any other information

I have referred to the transcripts of interviews with children who spoke of the defendant's conduct at about the time of the index offences. I have taken these matters into account with respect to the pattern of offending conduct referred to above, with allowance for their weight (since they were not the subject of charges and were not tested at trial).

Section 9(3)(a): the safety of the community

Mr Averre has put on behalf of the defendant that the risk posed to the public is largely confined to Kay's grandchildren since his history does not include random, impulsive acts against children in public areas. He submitted that, in these circumstances, the risk will effectively be reduced, if not removed, by Bill's imminent move to Newcastle. He also relied on Kay's growing awareness of the reality of the risk posed by the defendant (and her acceptance of his past guilt) as an additional protective factor.
Mr Averre referred to Mr Van Ryn's evidence that he considered Kay to be an "appropriate person" for the purposes of the conditions of his existing ESO (although Mr Van Ryn accepted that he did not have the authority to make such a decision). Mr Averre submitted that, in these circumstances, Kay's presence (which ought be inferred would be continuous, having regard to their marriage) would provide an adequate protective mechanism even were no ESO to be ordered. He also referred, as an additional protective mechanism, to the Child Protection legislation (Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 and Child Protection (Offenders Prohibition Orders) Act 2004 (NSW)), pursuant to which the defendant was registered. He submitted that, for these reasons, although there was a risk, I ought not be satisfied that it was an unacceptable risk.
The safety of the community in the present case is, in substance, the safety of young girls to whom the defendant is sexually attracted, and in particular those who are within a family circle to which the defendant belongs. The defendant has apparently no insight into the danger he poses and is unwilling to restrain himself from indulging his sexual urges. The safety of the community would appear to be jeopardised except to the extent to which he can be controlled by external forces. Absent an ESO, there are no readily identifiable external forces that would apply, or be effective, to restrain the defendant. The Child Protection legislation does not include surveillance or electronic monitoring of the sort available under an ESO.
Moreover, the defendant has shown remarkable skill in insinuating himself into the affections of women who, by reason of their standing as mothers or grandmothers, have close relationships with (and play caring roles with respect to) young girls. Although Kay's attitude appears (from the supporting documentation) to have changed somewhat, I do not consider that she would necessarily provide any real protection for girls in the defendant's presence, having regard to her undoubted love and devotion to him, as well as her physical infirmities. Although access to Kay's grandchildren is likely to be much diminished when Bill moves his family to Newcastle, it cannot reasonably be contemplated that Kay will not have contact with her grandchildren, particularly as she has performed the role of mother for them for some years.

Conclusion

Having considered the factors in s 9(3) of the Act addressed above, in the context of the narrative of facts, it appears to me that the matters alleged in the supporting documentation would, if proved, justify the making of an ESO on the basis that the defendant poses an unacceptable risk of committing a serious sex offence if he is not kept under supervision.
Accordingly, I am persuaded that it is appropriate, and necessary, to protect the safety of the community, to order an ISO pursuant to s 10A of the Act for the maximum period of 28 days permitted under s 10C of the Act.
I am obliged, in these circumstances to make orders under s 7(4) of the Act appointing relevant experts to conduct examinations and report to the Court for the purposes of the final hearing at which the Court will determine whether to make an ESO in respect of the defendant, and, if so, for what period.
As referred to above, the plaintiff accepts the defendant's proposal that the conditions of any ISO be those of the first ESO subject to the further condition referred to above authorising the DSO to tell Kay's family about his criminal history. I am satisfied that these conditions are appropriate for the purposes of the ISO.

Orders

I make the following orders: 1. An order pursuant to section 7(4) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (the Act): 1. Appointing Dr Andrew Ellis, psychiatrist, and a further psychiatrist as agreed between the parties, or, failing agreement, as determined by the Court, to conduct separate examinations of the defendant and to furnish reports to the Supreme Court on the results of those examinations by 1 April 2016. 2. Directing the defendant to attend those examinations. 1. An order, pursuant to s 10A of the Act, that the defendant be subject to an interim supervision order for a period of 28 days, commencing at midnight on Sunday 6 March 2016 (the interim supervision order) on the conditions set out in the Schedule to these reasons together with the following additional condition: "The defendant's Departmental Supervising Officer (DSO) is permitted to tell the family of the defendant's current spouse about his criminal history." 1. List the plaintiff's application for renewal of the interim supervision order before me at 9.30am on 24 March 2016. 2. Direct the plaintiff to file and serve the evidence on which she proposes to rely at the final hearing, and her submissions, by 15 April 2016. 3. Direct the defendant to file and serve any evidence on which he proposes to rely at the final hearing, and his submissions, by 29 April 2016. 4. Direct the plaintiff to file and serve her submissions in reply by 4 May 2016. 5. List the matter for final hearing on Friday 6 May 2016 with an estimate of one day. 6. Grant liberty to relist the matter on 2 days' notice. SCHEDULE EXTENDED SUPERVISION ORDER: CONDITIONS APPLICABLE TO ROBERT STANLEY STEADMAN Oversight For the purpose of these conditions, the Departmental supervising officer is the Corrective Services officer 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 ("the Department"). Corrective Services NSW is a division of the Department. Reporting and monitoring obligations For the duration of the supervision order, the defendant must accept the supervision of Corrective Services. The defendant must report personally once a week to the Departmental supervising officer or otherwise as directed by that officer. The defendant must comply with any reasonable direction given by the Departmental supervising officer or any other corrective services officer who may from time to time be allocated to the defendant's case. 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 corrective services officer in relation to the operation of such equipment, and must not tamper with or remove such equipment. If directed by the Departmental supervising officer, the defendant must inform the Departmental supervising officer of his movements in advance by providing a schedule. The schedule must be: In writing; For a period of 7 days ("the schedule period"), unless a shorter schedule period is approved by the Departmental supervising officer; and Given to the Departmental supervising officer at least 3 days in advance of the schedule period. The defendant must notify the Departmental supervising officer of any change to the schedule at least 24 hours in advance, unless a shorter period is approved by the Departmental supervising officer. Condition 6 does not apply in the case of emergency, including if the defendant requires urgent medical attention, and he is unable to notify the Departmental supervising officer. In that event, the defendant must provide documentation relating to the medical emergency. The defendant must respond accurately to the best of his knowledge and ability to all enquiries by his Departmental supervising officer, or any other corrective services officer who may from time to time be allocated to the defendant's case, about his whereabouts and movements generally. Accommodation For the duration of the order the defendant must reside at accommodation approved by the Departmental supervising officer. Except with the prior approval of the Departmental supervising officer, the defendant must not stay overnight, or for any other temporary period, at a place other than approved accommodation. The defendant must accept visits at his approved accommodation, including visits without prior notice, by the Departmental supervising officer or any other corrective services officer who may from time to time be allocated to the defendant's case. 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 by the Departmental supervising officer) unless his presence at another place during those hours has been approved by his Departmental supervising officer. The defendant must not leave the State of New South Wales without the written permission of the Commissioner of Corrective Services ("the Commissioner") or his delegate. Restrictions on employment and other activities Employment The defendant must not engage in volunteer work, practical training as part of an educational or vocational course, or paid or unpaid employment (including self-employment) other than that which has been approved by the Departmental supervising officer. The defendant must notify his Departmental supervising officer of: The nature of his employment or proposed employment; Any offer of employment; The hours of work each day; The name of his employer or proposed employer; and The address of the premises where he is or will be employed. Without limiting condition 3 above, if directed to do so by the Departmental supervising officer, the defendant must make his employer aware of his offending history and that he is subject to any interim supervision order or extended supervision order and the terms of the order. Non-associations generally The defendant must not associate with any persons specified by the Departmental supervising officer. Without limiting condition 17 above, except with the prior permission of the Departmental supervising officer the defendant: Must not knowingly associate with any person convicted of a "serious sex offence" or an "offence of a sexual nature" as defined by the Act (except in the course of living in the COSP Centre or other Departmental facility or attending the community-based maintenance program conducted by the Forensic Psychology Services section of Corrective Services NSW); Must not contact or communicate by any means (directly or indirectly) with, or attempt to contact or communicate by any means (directly or indirectly) with, the victims of the sexual offences for which the defendant was sentenced on 18 November 1994 and 17 April 2009. Should the defendant enter into a relationship with another person ("the other person"), 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 the 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 child of or related to that person, or who from time to time be in that person's care, custody or control. The defendant must obtain written permission and approval in advance from his Departmental supervising officer prior to joining or affiliating with any club or organisation. The defendant must not frequent or visit any place or district specified by the Departmental supervising officer. Non-association with children The defendant must not: Approach, associate, initiate or maintain any contact with a child under the age of 16 years; Attend any schools, pre-schools, day care centres, amusement parlours, amusement parks, theme parks, camping groups, caravan parks, children's playgrounds, parks and playing fields; children's hospitals, or 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: Has prior written permission of the Departmental supervising officer; and Is 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. Access to the Internet and pornography (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. 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 or other device (including mobile phone or tablet computer) a parental lock or other device or software that may restrict access to or permit access only to certain web sites. If and as directed by the Departmental Supervising Officer, the defendant must: Permit the Departmental Supervising Officer, and any person ("the technician") employed or engaged by or on behalf of the Department, to access and inspect any computer or other device (including mobile phone or tablet computer) owned by the defendant, including the temporary removal of the computer or other device from his place of residence or his person for the purpose of inspection; Take all available steps to permit the Departmental Supervising Officer and the technician to have access to and inspect any computer or other device (including mobile phone or tablet computer) used by or owned by the defendant; Provide the Departmental Supervising Officer and the technician with any requested assistance to enable either or both of them to access and inspect any computer or other device (including mobile phone or tablet computer) owned or used by the defendant, including providing them with any required passwords; Permit the Departmental Supervising Officer and the technician to make copies of any files or materials on any computer or other device (including mobile phone or tablet 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. Vehicles The defendant must notify his Departmental supervising officer of the make, model, colour and registration number of any vehicle: Owned by him; or Driven or to be driven by him, whether hired or otherwise obtained for his use. Search and Seizure If the Departmental supervising officer reasonably believes that a search (of the type referred to in sub-paragraphs d to f below) is necessary: For the safety and welfare of residents or staff at the defendant's approved accommodation; To monitor the defendant's compliance with the extended supervision order or an interim supervision order; or Because the Departmental supervising officer reasonably suspects the defendant of behaviour or conduct associated with an increased risk of the defendant committing a serious sex offence; then the Departmental supervising officer may direct, and the defendant must submit to: Search and inspection of any part of, or any thing in, the defendant's approved accommodation; Search and inspection of any part of, or any thing in, any vehicle owned or hired by the defendant; and/or Search and examination of his person in his approved accommodation. For the purposes of paragraph 27.f: A search of the defendant means either or both a garment search or a pat-down search. To the extent practicable a pat-down search will be conducted by a Departmental supervising officer of the same sex as the defendant, or by a corrective services officer of the same sex as the defendant under the direction of the Departmental supervising officer concerned NOTE: "Garment search" means a search of any article of clothing worn by the defendant or in the defendant's possession, where the article of clothing is touched or removed from the person's body. "Pat-down search" means a search of a person where the person's clothed body is touched. During a search carried out pursuant to paragraph 27, the defendant must allow the Departmental supervising officer to seize any thing found in the defendant's approved accommodation, any vehicle owned or hired by the defendant, or on the defendant's person, whether in the defendant's possession or not, which the Departmental supervising officer reasonably suspects will compromise: The safety of residents or of staff at the defendant's approved accommodation; The welfare or safety of any member of the public; or The defendant's compliance with the extended supervision order or an interim supervision; or which the Departmental supervising officer reasonably suspects relates to behaviour or conduct associated with an increased risk of the defendant committing a serious sex offence. Personal details and appearance The defendant must not change his name from Robert Stanley Steadman, or use any name other than Robert Stanley Steadman without the prior approval of the Departmental supervising officer. The defendant must not, without the approval of the Departmental supervising officer, change his appearance to the extent that he cannot be easily recognised. 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. The defendant must provide his Departmental supervising officer with information regarding any tattoos or permanent distinguishing marks that the defendant has (including details of any tattoo or mark that has been removed). Medical intervention treatment obligations The defendant must undergo a comprehensive assessment, as recommended by a treating or consulting clinician, to determine what is required for treatment in respect of the defendant's potential for sex offending. The defendant must accept psychological and psychiatric treatment as may be provided by a treating clinician. The defendant must take any anti-psychotic, anti-libidinal (including SSRI's) or other prescribed medication if and as prescribed by a medical practitioner. The note at paragraph 40 below applies. 36a. If the defendant knowingly ceases to take medication that has been prescribed, he is to notify his Departmental supervising officer within 24 hours of ceasing to take the medication. The defendant must not take any medication or substance which, to the defendant's knowledge, may affect the effectiveness of any medication prescribed under condition 36 being taken by the defendant, unless the defendant's treating medical practitioner prescribes such medication. The defendant must attend regular medical consultations, physical examinations, pathology testing, and medical imaging as directed by a treating clinician. If directed by his Departmental supervising officer, the defendant must accept and participate in maintenance or other rehabilitation programs as may be offered to him, including the maintenance program provided by the Forensic Psychology Services. It is noted that the "reasonable directions" (in condition 3) and the participation in treatment (in conditions 35 and 36) do not include participation in treatment, or requiring the defendant to take any medication that may be prescribed, without his informed consent. Disclosure of information The defendant must disclose to the Departmental supervising officer the identity of any treating or consulting clinician that he consults, as soon as reasonably practicable. The defendant must consent to the disclosure of confidential medical information as between any treating or consulting clinician and the Departmental supervising officer. The defendant must consent to his Departmental supervising officer and other officers from the Department (including from Corrective Services) collecting and using 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. The defendant must agree to the disclosure of all information between his Departmental supervising officer, other officers from the Department officers (including from Corrective Services), any treating or consulting clinicians. The defendant must agree that, if the Departmental supervising officer considers it appropriate to do so, the Departmental supervising officer may disclose 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. The defendant must provide his Departmental supervising officer details of any carriage service (within the meaning of the Telecommunications Act 1997 of the Commonwealth) used, or intended to be used, by the defendant. The defendant must provide his Departmental supervising officer details of any internet service provider or provider of a carriage service (within the meaning of the Telecommunications Act 1997 of the Commonwealth) used, or intended to be used, by the defendant. The defendant must provide his Departmental supervising officer with details of the type of any internet connection used, or intended to be used, by the defendant, including whether the connection is a wireless, broadband, ADSL or dial-up connection. The defendant must provide his Departmental supervising officer with details of any email addresses, internet user names, instant messaging user names, chat room user names or any other user name or identity used, or intended to be used, by the defendant through the internet or other electronic communication service. Review of grievance In the event the defendant is aggrieved by any decision of the Departmental supervising officer, he may set out his grievance, in writing, to the Commissioner of Corrective Services who is to consider his grievance and make appropriate directions as to supervision. Review of order At the expiration of 3 months from the making of the order (and at the end of each six monthly period thereafter, if the defendant is still then subject to electronic monitoring), the continued need for the defendant to wear the electronic monitoring equipment will be reviewed by the Departmental supervising officer and, for this purpose, the Departmental supervising officer may consult with (either jointly or separately) any treating or consulting clinician and must consult with the defendant. The conditions of the extended supervision order to which the Defendant is subject shall be reviewed by the Commissioner: On each occasion a review is conducted under condition 51; and At the expiry of 12 months from the date on which a decision is made (if any) that the defendant is not required to wear electronic monitoring equipment and at the end of each 12 month period thereafter. The purpose of a review under condition 52 is for the Commissioner to consider any possible adjustments of the conditions of the extended supervision order and/or consideration by the State as to whether an application should be made to the Court to vary the conditions if considered appropriate. For the purposes of this review, the Commissioner may consult with (either jointly or separately) any treating or consulting clinician and the defendant. For the purpose of this condition, the Commissioner may act through an authorised officer. Following a review under condition 51 or condition 52, the reviewer must notify the defendant in writing of the result of the review.

Amendments 04 March 2016 - Paragraph 133(2) - changed s 10B to s 10A Schedule - changed "Department of Attorney General and Justice" to "Department of Justice" in first paragraph under the heading "Oversight" 09 March 2016 - 9 March 2016 Pseudonym used to protect anonymity DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 09 March 2016

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (24 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (4)

Cases Cited (5)

Cited By (14)