State of New South Wales v Atkins

The defendant's circumstances 9The defendant's criminal record is before the Court. The defendant was convicted of: minor stealing offences between 1977 and 1982; set fire with intent to murder in 1983; stealing and possession of a prescribed restricted substance (the items stolen included, relevantly, 19 pairs of children's or women's underpants) in 1984; act of indecency towards person under 10 years in 1991; and, in 2007, the index offences of aggravated indecent assault. 10It is appropriate to summarise briefly the 1991 offence and the index offences. The 1991 offence occurred when the defendant exposed his penis to the victim and rubbed it on the top of her legs. The victim was six years old at the time. She was the daughter of Ms R with whom the defendant had commenced a relationship about five or six months earlier. 11The defendant was convicted after trial and continues to maintain his innocence. 12The index offences occurred when a friend (Mrs B) of Ms R (with whom the defendant had continued in a relationship) visited the premises occupied by the defendant and Ms R. Mrs B visited the premises with her daughters aged 12, 9, 7, and 5 years of age. 13On 5 January 2007, Mrs B visited with her 9-year-old daughter who was recovering from an operation on her leg and needed to utilise crutches. At about 3pm, Ms R and Mrs B went to collect Mrs B's other daughters from school, leaving the recovering 9-year-old with the defendant. 14During the period alone, the defendant removed his pants and underwear, lay on top of the child (after having removed her underwear and raised her skirt) and rubbed his penis on her labia (outside the vagina). The child pushed him away, after several attempts, after which the defendant threatened her by saying, "If you tell anyone, I'll kill you". 15The next day, the defendant and Ms R visited Mrs B's home. At about 7pm, Mrs B went to the hospital for an hour, accompanied by Ms R. The defendant informed the four children that he, the defendant, needed to speak to the 12-year-old. He told the others to go to the backroom and lay behind her, threatening that if she were to inform anyone, he would hurt her. 16Later that evening, the 12-year-old went to her bedroom. The defendant locked the other children outside in the backyard, went to the oldest child's bedroom, took off his pants, took off her shorts and underwear and lay between her legs. She asked him to stop. He had already threatened her. 17One of the other children, who had managed to enter the house, saw what was happening through the gap in the door. On Mrs B's return, both the 9-year-old and 12-year-old informed Mrs B of the events of that evening and the evening before. Mrs B rang the police. 18The defendant pleaded guilty to the two counts of aggravated indecent assault (victim under 16) and one count of indecent assault (victim under 10). Notwithstanding the plea of guilty, the defendant maintains his innocence. 19The defendant has offended while on conditional liberty but not during the last two extended periods (May 1986 to November 1990 and March to September 1993). The defendant was refused parole, although of good behaviour during incarceration, because of the perceived risk arising from his non-attendance at an appropriate therapeutic programme, and dure to accommodation issues. 20I note that his non-attendance was due to his assessed ineligibility for the courses on offer. There seems to have been no course available for a sex offender, of his kind, who both denies guilt and has an intellectual disability. (There are programmes available for persons who possess one of those attributes, but not both.) 21Further, until very recently, the perceived risk was exacerbated by the proposal that the defendant return to reside with Ms R. 22The Court has before it, notwithstanding the interim nature of these proceedings, a number of reports from psychiatrists and psychologists, most compiled for sentencing purposes and for that reason some are quite out of date. 23The latest report of that kind was dated 6 June 2012 and was provided for parole purposes. The psychologist, Ms Celia Langton, assesses the defendant as having a high risk of sexual reoffending. 24A report was also compiled specifically for the purposes of these proceedings by Mr Patrick Sheehan, Senior Forensic Psychologist at Corrective Services. Parts of that report were not pressed by the plaintiff. 25Mr Sheehan also assesses the defendant "in the high risk category relative to other men who have sexually offended". He recommends, or expects, "intensive supervision and case management" by Corrective Services, if the defendant were subject to an ESO. I have read each of the tendered reports and rely on them in reaching my conclusions (except those parts that were not pressed).

Conclusion 26First, from the foregoing and the material before the Court, it is clear that there is jurisdiction to make either of the orders sought (or there existed jurisdiction at the time the orders issued), namely, the defendant is a high risk sex offender: s 5B of the Act. Further, the requirements of s 6 of the Act have been satisfied. 27Any assessment of the defendant, on a preliminary basis on the material before the Court, would conclude that, if that material were proved, one or other category of EDO or ESO would be justified: s 16(1)(b) of the Act. 28For the purposes of making an interim order, I give greater weight to risk avoidance: Attorney-General for NSW v Winters [2007] NSWSC 311 at [7], per Bell J. 29I am satisfied to a high degree of probability that the defendant poses an unacceptable risk of committing a serious sex offence if not kept under supervision. 30The major issue, on the submissions of the parties and the material before the Court, is whether the appropriate order is an IDO or an ISO. There are factors pointing in each direction. 31One of the most important factors was the proposal that the defendant return to reside with Ms R. If that proposal were to have continued, I have no hesitation in remarking that an IDO would have issued. That proposal was altered. 32The current proposal is that the defendant reside in a Community Offender Support Program ("COSP") Centre operated by Corrective Services. As a consequence, there would be no likelihood of children living on the premises or being on the premises unsupervised. This is a most significant factor. 33Another significant aspect is the defendant's stated refusal to medicate with anti-libidinal drugs. Currently, there is no evidence that the defendant's past offending is a manifestation of sexual desire. There are a number of reasons that such offending may occur. 34The report of Ms Young on 18 August 2008, provided for sentencing for the index offences, suggests that the offending may be referrable to the defendant's assessment of his intellectual disability. (The defendant has a reading ability approximating a 5-year-old and is in the lowest 2.2% of the population in intellectual functioning.) Ms Young notes that the offending may disclose intimacy deficits under which the defendant identifies with children, rather than adults. In each offence, the defendant expressed "his love" for the victim. 35It is not necessary, in making an interim detention order, for the Court to be satisfied that a supervision order would not suffice. Such a determination is necessary when final orders are to be made. 36Nevertheless, the intimacy deficits to which I have referred are consistent with the pattern of offending. The risk of offending based on such issues is significantly reduced by the accommodation of the defendant at the COSP Centre and, at least on an interim basis, ameliorates the concerns associated with the defendant's lack of insight into his behaviour and the refusal to abide by any prescribed anti-libidinal medication. 37For those reasons, I was satisfied that an ISO, as distinct from an IDO, should issue. For the same reasons, and to ensure that the Court is better informed at the final hearing, an order under s 15(4) of the Act, appointing two psychiatrists, also issued. 38No issue was taken with the conditions proposed in the ISO, if it were to issue. The conditions proposed were both reasonable and appropriate. 39As a consequence, on 20 December 2013, the Court issued orders substantially in the terms of prayers 1 and 6 of the Summons filed by the plaintiff on 28 November 2013.

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: 08 January 2014