State of New South Wales v Golding

Supreme Court of NSW|2018-09-20|Before: Hulme J

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor's Office Legal Aid NSW File Number(s): 2018/136841

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: The State of New South Wales has applied for an extended supervision order under the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) in respect of Mr Laurence Golding.
Mr Golding concedes that all of the preconditions for making an order are established by the material upon which the State relies. However, it remains a matter for the Court to be satisfied of that. Mr Golding takes issue with the duration of the order, suggesting it should be for 2 years whereas the State argues for the maximum period of 5 years. Mr Golding also takes issue with some of the proposed conditions.
I presided at the preliminary hearing of this matter which was contested. I made orders appointing two experts to conduct examinations of Mr Golding and provide reports to the Court. I also ordered that there be an interim supervision order to take effect when Mr Golding was released from his current period of custody. I gave judgment and reasons on 9 July 2018: State of New South Wales v Golding (Preliminary) [2018] NSWSC 1041 ("the preliminary judgment").
Mr Golding has since been seen by Dr Adrian Keller, psychiatrist, and Ms Jenny Howell, psychologist, and their reports have been received by the Court. The State has also tendered some additional material, essentially to update the information that was before the Court on the last occasion.

Dr Keller's report

Dr Adrian Keller carried out a psychiatric examination of Mr Golding over 3½ hours on 26 July 2018. He also had the benefit of being briefed with a large volume of the documentary material that the State has compiled for the purpose of the proceedings.
Counsel for Mr Golding objected to two matters in Dr Keller's report. One matter is of no moment (it relates to Mr Golding's claim that he was diagnosed by a general practitioner with depression and anxiety). The other relates to a diagnosis that Mr Golding is a psychopath. I will come back to that. Otherwise there was no dispute with Dr Keller's opinions as set out in the report.
Aside from the controversial matters, Dr Keller diagnosed Mr Golding as meeting the diagnostic criteria for alcohol use disorder, gambling disorder and several paraphilic disorders: voyeuristic disorder, exhibitionistic disorder and frotteuristic disorder.
Dr Keller also found that Mr Golding met 6 of the 7 criteria for antisocial personality disorder. The unmet criterion was conduct disorder prior to the age of 18 which is a prerequisite for such a diagnosis but of which there was no evidence.
The controversial diagnosis was expressed as follows: "[I]n my opinion, Mr Golding does meet the criteria for the important clinical construct of psychopathy, which is not present within the DSM-V. … In my opinion, Mr Golding fulfils the criteria for a 'prototypical psychopath' in that he has features of all 4 facets contained within the clinical construct, being interpersonal, affective, lifestyle and antisocial. These can be described in the following ways: Interpersonal - manipulates others for selfish purpose; uses superficial charm and deceit to exploit others. Affective - emotionally shallow; experiences little remorse, guilt or empathy. Lifestyle - self indulgent; reckless; sensation seeking; impulsive and irresponsible. Antisocial - preference for rule breaking, drug use and other criminal behaviour."
Even if one were to ignore the label, "psychopath", the fact that Dr Keller considered that Mr Golding had the features of those four facets is concerning in itself. But I am prepared to accept Dr Keller's conclusion. While "psychopathy" might not be within DSM-V, that does not mean that it is a matter beyond Dr Keller's specialised training, study or experience in psychiatry. He explained in his oral evidence that "psychopathy is a term that has been used in forensic psychiatry, in particular, and forensic psychology for many decades".
Dr Keller used the instrument PCL-R (Psychopathy Check List - Revised) which yielded a score confirmatory of the diagnosis of psychopathy. (He explained that the PCL-R "is a well validated instrument which is used by forensic psychologists and forensic psychiatrists around the world".) Dr Keller noted that studies had not shown a high PCL-R score to be a good predictor of sexual recidivism. It may, however, be significant insofar as looking at response to treatment programs and to supervision. He referred to the report of Ms Calinda Payne in relation to Mr Golding's participation in the CUBIT program (see preliminary judgment [64]-[66]) and noted that it may be a mistake to place too much weight on the perception by the treatment team of an offender's progress in treatment. Dr Keller said that he was, therefore, sceptical about any actual emergence of insight in Mr Golding as to his offending behaviour that resulted from that program.
Perhaps a good example of Mr Golding having the attributes described in the categories of "interpersonal" and "affective" is what he said about a letter he wrote to the State Parole Authority on 9 April 2018 (see preliminary judgment at [61]-[62]). On the face of it, what he wrote indicated remarkable insight into the causes of his offending behaviour and acknowledgement of the need for him not to be left unsupervised in the community. But Dr Keller's report includes: "He acknowledged that the letter he wrote to the Parole Office (sic) on 9 April 2018 was worded merely for the purpose of gaining parole, and not necessarily sincere". This is similar to the expressions of remorse and regret for his sexual offending which Dr Keller described as largely "superficial and rehearsed". It is also similar to his seemingly feigned attempt to look "sorrowful" during his interview with Dr Keller: "Mr Golding demonstrated elements of grandiosity and self-serving postures with respect to his offending, rationalising his past behaviour through a number of his responses. He similarly listed the likely victim impact without appearing genuinely sincere. On one occasion, he appeared to make a concerted effort to look sorrowful; he wiped his eyes and face but no tears emerged. This took on significance within the context of the interview as it appeared contrived. It was noted that Mr Golding quickly resumed his normal emotional state soon thereafter, and proceeded with the interview."
Dr Keller was challenged as to his opinion about psychopathy. He agreed in cross-examination that if opinions by Dr Payne and her co-author of the CUBIT report and by Mr Samuel Ardasinski, the author of a Risk Assessment Report, were correct as to the treatment gains, the development of insight and the like that Mr Golding had achieved, then that would be inconsistent with the construct of psychopathy.
On this disputed issue, to the extent that it matters, I accept Dr Keller's assessment. The other opinions referred to were, it seems, based to a significant extent upon the assessments of forensic psychologists of what Mr Golding portrayed. Dr Keller on the other hand, as a forensic psychiatrist, was applying something that he said had been used in the field of psychiatry "in particular" as well as in psychology; he based his assessment upon his clinical evaluation over the course of a 3½ hour interview as well as a review of a large volume of documentary material concerned with the facts of Mr Golding's offending behaviour and evaluations of it; and he was supported in his assessment by a well validated assessment tool, the PCL-R.
Dr Keller also used the instrument RSVP (Risk of Sexual Violence Protocol) and found that Mr Golding scored highly across all five of the domains examined: sexual violence history; psychological adjustment; mental disorder; social adjustment; and manageability.
Dr Keller considered that Mr Golding would most likely offend against young adult women aged 18 to 30 who are strangers to him. It would most likely occur impulsively and opportunistically in settings such as trains, bus shelters, parks and other open spaces. He said that if Mr Golding's preferred target age group not be readily available, he was likely to identify younger females in the age group of 13 to 18 in an equally opportunistic manner. The offending was likely to involve either touching and rubbing, or the exposing of his genitals and masturbation.
Factors that increase the likelihood of offending included intoxication with alcohol, homelessness, lack of immediately available finances (possibly related to gambling), general stress levels, increasing sexual preoccupation and the absence of an alternative "sexual outlet".
Dr Keller considered that it was unlikely that Mr Golding would perpetrate sexual violence that is life-threatening or liable to cause significant physical harm. However, his history of recurrent sexual violence against young women indicated that he may cause potentially serious psychological harm to his victims.
Dr Keller said that warning signs of imminence of offending would include lack of stable and suitable accommodation; a breach of his supervision conditions and loss of contact with his supervisors; a reinstatement of alcohol use and gambling; and an increase in sexual preoccupation.
Mr Golding's risk of further offending was assessed as "chronic". Dr Keller said that despite Mr Golding's claims to the contrary, it would "be naïve to assume that his pattern of offending behaviour has de-escalated when there has been limited opportunity to offend in the manner in which he has typically done, whilst he has been in custody".
Dr Keller considered Mr Golding to have a "very high" likelihood of further sexual offending. A little later in his report he said that "Mr Golding's general risk of reoffending is high, although his specific risk of committing a serious sex offence [which I take to mean as that expression is defined in the Act] is to some extent lower than this". Dr Keller is of the view that an ESO "has the potential to further lower this specific risk".
As to the proposed conditions of an ESO, Dr Keller offered a number of comments which will, where relevant, be mentioned below. I note, however, that under the category of conditions concerning "treatment", he said, "Any attempts to modify fundamental personality characteristics (e.g. enhancing capacity for empathy and remorse) is likely to be futile".
As to the duration of an ESO, Dr Keller was of the opinion that it should be at the maximum allowed under the Act, 5 years. This was because of: "…the chronicity and escalation of Mr Golding's sexual offending. In particular, he has had a limited period outside of custody over the past 10 years without offending. His static and dynamic risk factors indicate that he has a very high risk of general criminal offending, as well as general sex offending. Whilst his specific risk of serious sex offending is difficult to quantify, he continues to be relatively indiscriminate in the age range of his victims, between late adolescence and young adults. For this reason, it remains quite likely that he could stray into offending against the category of females under the age of 16. His rate of recidivism, with respect to general sex offending, is high and his likelihood of treatment failure and supervision failure is also high."
In his oral evidence, Dr Keller was quite emphatic: "Mr Golding's risk is not going to diminish within any lesser period than five years".

Ms Howell's report

Ms Jenny Howell, psychologist, interviewed Mr Golding on 8 August 2018 and she was also briefed with a large volume of documentary material.
Included in her review of Mr Golding's psychosexual history she said he said "he has learned from his participation in the CUBIT program that he needs to avoid risky situations and manage his emotions so they don't overwhelm him in order to make appropriate and healthy decisions". (One cannot help but think of what Mr Golding said to Dr Keller about his 9 April 2018 letter to the State Parole Authority when hearing claims such as that.)
On the history of drug and alcohol use, Ms Howell recounted that Mr Golding "denies any use of illicit substances in the last ten years and said he has never used illicit substances intravenously". This is in contrast to Mr Golding telling Dr Keller that he had last used amphetamines in 2016. The histories given by Mr Golding to both experts are contradicted by what he said in a custodial reception screening assessment on 28 February 2018. It included a history that in the past 4 weeks there was daily intravenous use of heroin as well as intravenous use of ice 2-3 days per week.
Ms Howell adopted a more positive view of Mr Golding's involvement in the CUBIT program than did Dr Keller. She appears to have accepted without question the content of Ms Calinda Payne's report of 16 July 2014 (see preliminary judgment at [64]-[66]).
Ms Howell's scoring of Mr Golding on the Static-99R instrument placed him in the "well above average risk level (2016 version) for being charged with, or convicted of, a further sexual offence". She noted that this does not measure all relevant risk factors and said that Mr Golding's recidivism rate may be higher or lower than that indicated because of factors not included in the risk instrument.
Using the STABLE-2007 instrument, Ms Howell found that Mr Golding had "a high level of criminogenic needs". She said that of clinical concern were his capacity for Relationship Stability; Social Rejection; Impulsivity; Sexual Drive, Sexual Preoccupation and Sex as Coping.
Ms Howell also assessed Mr Golding's dynamic risk factors using the RSVP. She also found problems in items in each of the five domains. Both Ms Howell and Dr Keller scored Mr Golding highly in relation to the following: Sexual Violence History: - Chronicity of sexual violence. Psychological Adjustment: - Extreme minimization of offending behaviour. - Problems with self-awareness. Mental Disorder: - (Dr Keller and Ms Howell rated Mr Golding on separate items in this domain.) Social Adjustment - Problems with intimate relationships. - Problems with non-intimate relationships. - Problems with employment. Manageability - Problems with planning.
In the Mental Disorder domain, Dr Keller rated Mr Golding in respect of "Sexual deviance" and "Psychopathic personality disorder" whereas Ms Howell rated him in respect of "Problems with substance abuse" and "Violent or suicidal ideation".
In addressing some specific questions at the end of her report, Ms Howell said that an "assessment of Mr Golding's static and dynamic risk factors and clinical assessment support the view his future risk of offending is within the Well Above Average risk range. In responding to a question about whether he posed a risk of committing a further "serious sex offence" as opposed to merely a risk of committing a further non-serious sex offence Ms Howell wrote in part: "It is my opinion that whilst Mr Golding does not acknowledge a sexual attraction to children, at various times throughout the assessment interview he identified the age range of adults he was attracted to and with who he would like to form relationships, as being as young as 16 and ranged between 19, 25, 35 and 40 years. It is difficult given Mr Golding's broad age range of females who he is attracted to and his prior misreading of the ages of two young women, to be certain he does not pose a risk of committing a further serious sex offence."
The concluding sentence above is clarified in the next section of Ms Howell's report where she wrote: "It is my view Mr Golding does pose a risk of committing a further serious sex offence and the risk could be managed in the community under an Extended Supervision Order."
As to the duration of an ESO, Ms Howell wrote: "It is my view that the duration of the ESO be not less than three years given Mr Golding's well above average risk level of committing a further serious sex offence. Three years would provide Mr Golding with a level of support and supervision so that he could focus on further treatment through Forensic Psychology Service in the community. The level of impulsivity that appears present in Mr Golding's past offences needs to be addressed more fully and whilst he can identify the risk factors he does not have sufficient resources to influence his decision to offend if risk factors are present."
I note that earlier in her report when discussing the item "chronicity of sexual violence" in the sexual violence history domain of RSVP, Ms Howell wrote: "Sexual violence includes all acts committed by a person, not just those that result in arrest, charge or conviction. Mr Golding's sexual violence can be categorised as chronic and persistent due to the persistent, repeated, recidivistic and frequency of his sexual offending."
One particular matter of significance emerged during Ms Howell's oral evidence. The history she obtained concerning the last sexual offending by Mr Golding included that he thought the victims (who were aged 13) were aged 19. Ms Howell had come to a view about the level of risk of serious sex offending Mr Golding presented that was, in part, based upon his stated interest in women who were older than children. But when her attention was drawn to the fact that Mr Golding had told Dr Keller that he thought these victims were aged 15 or 16, Ms Howell said, "that comment would suggest he does, to some extent, have an interest in younger women, younger than the age that he talked about".

Other risk assessments

In the preliminary judgment (at [66]) I referred to the assessment by Dr Calinda Payne in 2014 of Mr Golding being at a risk rating of "High" on the Static-99R instrument.
Reference was also made (at [68]) to the assessment of Mr Samuel Ardasinski that he scored at "well above average" on Static-99R (the same result recently found by Ms Howell) and "high" on the Static-2002R tool. Mr Ardasinski also conducted an assessment using the STABLE-2007 tool which yielded a result suggesting a high density of criminogenic needs relative to other male sex offenders. Combining the results of each of those three assessments, Mr Ardasinski found Mr Golding was at a level which indicated he required a high degree of intervention and/or supervision.

Conclusion as to the making of an ESO

Given the finding I made at the preliminary hearing, the making of an ESO would be justified on the assumption that the matters in the supporting documentation were proved. Now it is apparent that there is no dispute about proof of such matters and I am satisfied that they have been proved. There remains the question whether an ESO should be made.
Counsel for Mr Golding, while disputing the validity of the diagnosis by Dr Keller of psychopathy, acknowledged the following matters: a) The prior history of offending and continuous nature of same. b) The assessment of risk as to general sex offending. c) The "default position" to younger females should the "preferred target group not be available".
Having regard to the paramount consideration of the safety of the community it is clear that an ESO should be made. The finding I made at the preliminary hearing is abundantly supported by the expert reports that are now available which unequivocally support the proposition that Mr Golding poses an unacceptable risk of committing another serious sex offence if he is not kept under supervision pursuant to an ESO.

Duration

Counsel for Mr Golding contended that an order should be for no longer than two years but I am of the view that two years would quite clearly be inadequate. In this respect I have had particular regard to the chronicity of Mr Golding's sexual offending generally and the relative ease with which he may stray into serious sexual offending as defined in the Act.
Dr Keller was of the view that an ESO should be for a period of five years whereas Ms Howell considered a period of not less than three years was appropriate. Ms Howell seems to have adopted a somewhat less negative view about Mr Golding's remorse for his offending and insight into its causes. There is cause for scepticism about that, particularly having regard to the admission Mr Golding made as to his glib attempt earlier this year to deceive the State Parole Authority about his insightfulness and sincerity.
The order should be made for a period of five years.

Conditions

The State relied upon an affidavit of Ms Danielle Ottaway, Community Corrections officer in the ESO Team, as providing an explanation and justification for the conditions that it suggests should be attached to the order. Counsel for Mr Golding raised a number of objections, or at least suggestions for modifications.
Condition 5. It was submitted that there should be a sunset clause in respect of the electronic monitoring condition so as to provide a maximum period of 9 months unless there is a breach of the order. Ms Ottaway referred to electronic monitoring as something "which can be implemented at the discretion of the DSO" (Departmental Supervising Officer). [1] She said that it is something that is "reviewed both during the 3 monthly case management review meeting and at each case plan review. It is usually relaxed over time, depending on the offender's progress".
Given the difficulty in predicting how Mr Golding will progress under an ESO, imposing an arbitrary time limit on this condition is unwise. Moreover, electronic monitoring is particularly important in this case in the light of his history of absconding, the last occasion of which occurred immediately after he was released on parole last January. The comment Mr Golding made to Dr Keller should also be borne in mind: "I think if it wasn't for the (ankle) bracelet I would just piss off".
Conditions 11 and 13. These proposed conditions provide for a curfew between 9.00pm and 6.00am "unless other arrangements are approved by his DSO" and for Mr Golding not to spend the night anywhere other than his approved address "without the approval of his DSO". These conditions are objected to on the basis that they are not called for and that there are other conditions for monitoring and regulating movements.
Ms Ottaway suggests that a curfew "can be an important tool in the management of offenders [in that] it can assist in providing structure and stability for an offender who has only recently been released from custody and is useful in trying to minimise exposure to environments related to risk of reoffending". She also referred to it being necessary in Mr Golding's case because he has committed a number of sexual offences at night time. There is also the point that alcohol is a significant risk factor for him and alcohol is more readily available and more widely consumed in the community at night time.
That seems to be a reasonable justification for the curfew condition. The condition concerning spending nights elsewhere duplicates the general condition as to Mr Golding complying with a pre-approved schedule of movements. However, it makes a specific point for the sake of clarity and it does not create any greater imposition.
Condition 14. This condition prohibits Mr Golding permitting someone entering, remaining or staying overnight at his approved address without the prior approval of his DSO. The objection is that this would be difficult to comply with in a group accommodation facility. I would expect common sense to prevail in the implementation of the order.
Condition 16. This condition requires the surrender of any passports. It is objected to on the basis that it is not necessary or required as Mr Golding does not have a passport. Moreover, his obligations under the Child Protection Register prevent him travelling overseas without permission. There is, therefore, nothing at all onerous about this condition remaining. Moreover, it is not the case that Mr Golding has not thought of disappearing overseas. Dr Keller wrote: "He has persistently stated his preference to 'get off the order', to undo many of his current restrictions and to move interstate or overseas."
Condition 17. This condition prohibits Mr Golding from going to "a place" if his DSO tells him he cannot go there. It is objected to as unnecessary as such a thing is regulated by the general condition about complying with an approved schedule of movements. I take this to mean this condition does not impose any additional burden. But it has the benefit of precision and clarity about any particular place to which Mr Golding might be directed never to go. Foresight has been applied by specifying particular types of places in Condition 18 but it may emerge in the future that there is another, or others. This condition simply allows for that to occur.
Condition 18. This condition lists various places to which Mr Golding must not go without prior approval of his DSO. Objection is taken to the appearance in the list of some of these but they are generally places where children might be expected to be found (e.g. "camping grounds and caravan parks" and "children's playgrounds").
There is no apparent justification for some of the places nominated; that is, "libraries and museums" and "playing fields and sporting facilities". Those places should be deleted. If there are any particular places that would fall within those terms that Mr Golding's DSO has a justifiable concern about, they could be specified in a direction given under Condition 17.
Also, there is no justification for (or it could be a problem of ambiguity in) including "parks", in item (f) "children's playgrounds, parks, and areas with play equipment provided for the use of children". Ms Cook, counsel for Mr Golding, suggested by way of example that this would prohibit him from walking through Hyde Park in the city. Item (f) will be amended to read, "children's playgrounds and parks or other areas that have play equipment provided for the use of children".
Condition 26. This condition prohibits Mr Golding entering any licensed premises without the approval of his DSO. It is suggested that licensed cafes should be excluded. Given Mr Golding's entrenched alcohol abuse disorder and the link to sexual offending, no such exclusion should be made.
Condition 34. This condition concerns Mr Golding having to inform his DSO if he "starts an intimate relationship". It is suggested that "intimate" should be more precisely defined. No practical alternative could be suggested. I consider the description to be clear enough.
Condition 36. This condition simply says that "the defendant must not gamble". Dr Keller suggested that gambling should be more precisely defined. I agree that the words "(including internet gambling and purchasing entries in lotteries)" should be added.
Conditions 38 to 47. These conditions come under the headings, "Access to the internet and other electronic communication" and "Search and seizure". The objection is that they are not relevant for the purpose of Mr Golding being subject to an ESO.
In relation to the first group (conditions 38-42), Ms Ottaway has deposed: "It is considered important to be able to monitor the Defendant's use of the internet to ensure that he is not accessing inappropriate pornographic material, utilising gambling websites and mobile telephone applications or establishing contact with others who may not be appropriate or may be engaged in anti-social activities. In managing risks around Communication devices such as mobile phones, it is important to be able to monitor what devices the Defendant possesses as the possession of multiple devices can be a way of concealing illicit activity."
In relation to the second group (conditions 43-47), Ms Ottaway deposed: "These conditions are standard conditions sought to ensure that the ESO team can monitor and supervise the Defendant appropriately, including monitoring the Defendant's use of the internet and devices for signs of inappropriate activity, such as accessing unapproved pornography."
There was an objection taken to these conditions at the preliminary hearing which I did not sustain for the purposes of the interim supervision order. For the same reasons, and for those provided by Ms Ottaway, I consider that all of these conditions should be included.
Condition 48. This provides that there must not be access (etc) to pornographic, violent or classified material. The objection is that there should be greater clarity in the wording of the condition so as to specifically address any concern relevant to Mr Golding. Further, it is said to be unclear why all of the classifications listed would be inappropriate for him.
Ms Ottaway wrote: "A discretion is built in to allow for the prior approval of the Defendant's DSO subject to consultation with relevant service providers (such as FPS [Forensic Psychology Services]) as to the specific risks associated with his access to this material."
Pornographic material played a role in past offending by Mr Golding (see preliminary judgment at [47], [114]). I am satisfied that the condition is necessary and sufficiently clearly stated. The prohibition on access (etc) to R18+ material was deleted at the preliminary hearing and the State has not sought to reinstate it.
Condition 51. This condition would prohibit Mr Golding changing his appearance without his DSO's approval. It is suggested it should be amended to refer to a "permanent" change of appearance. In my view that would then raise questions as to what "permanent" means. The State's rationale for seeking this condition is to prevent Mr Golding's appearance being altered so that his supervising officers will have difficulty recognising him. The condition will be amended by insertion after the words "change his appearance" of the words "in a manner that makes recognition of him by persons supervising him under this order more difficult".
Conditions 54, 56-58. These conditions come under the heading "Medical intervention and treatment". The objection is that they are neither necessary nor required. I agreed to the deletion of these at the preliminary hearing when the objection was that they went behind doctor/patient confidentiality without appropriate justification (preliminary judgment [118]). The State has pressed for their inclusion in a final order.
Ms Ottaway suggests that such conditions will ensure that the DSO is aware of any underlying conditions and that Mr Golding is receiving necessary treatment. This was submitted to be particularly important in light of the inconsistent statements Mr Golding has provided the court appointed experts in relation to various matters, including his use of illicit drugs, and Dr Keller's identification of Mr Golding displaying psychopathy, and "the propensity of an offender with this personality to be deceitful and manipulative".
Condition 54 is simply a requirement to notify the DSO of the name and address of any healthcare practitioner that Mr Golding consults. Both experts agreed that was appropriate and important. It will remain.
Counsel for the State ultimately indicated that Condition 56 ("must take all medications prescribed") was not pressed so it will be deleted.
Condition 57 would require Mr Golding to tell his DSO if he temporarily or permanently ceased taking medication. He is not on any medication that relates to his risk of reoffending and there is no evidence to suggest he will be. To make sense of such a requirement, it would be necessary for the DSO to be also told about the identity and purpose of the medication which would involve Mr Golding divulging something that would normally be private. I agree that the condition is neither necessary nor required. It will be deleted.
Condition 58 requires the sharing of information between healthcare providers which everyone seemed to agree was appropriate and there was, as Dr Keller said, usually an inference that the patient consents to this. However, the condition also would entail Mr Golding agreeing that information could be shared with his DSO. That could be counterproductive in that a patient might be reluctant to disclose to a healthcare professional information that was at risk of being disclosed to someone other than another healthcare provider. The words "and with his DSO" will be deleted from the condition.

Orders

I make the following orders: 1. An order pursuant to s 5B and s 9 of the Act that the defendant be subject to an extended supervision order for a period of 5 years from the date of the order. 2. An order pursuant to s 11 of the Act directing that the defendant, for the period of the extended supervision order, comply with the conditions set out in Schedule A of the Amended Summons, with the exception of Conditions 56 and 57, and with Conditions 18, 36, 51 and 58 amended as indicated in the reasons.

Endnote

It is common in applications such as these for such evidence to be given. I recently heard evidence in another case (on 10 September 2018 in State of New South Wales v Bilal Haoucher) in which (at T30.26) Ms Janelle Farroway, the High Risk Offender Applications and Operational Governance Officer of the Extended Supervision Order Team of Corrective Services NSW, said that she could not remember a case in which electronic monitoring had not be implemented. 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: 26 September 2018

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (10 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (1)

Cases Cited (1)

Cited By (2)