• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

File Number(s): 2025/00487989

Publication restriction: Nil.

JUDGMENT

1. The plaintiff has applied for an extended supervision order pursuant to the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 200**6 (NSW) for a period of four years.

2. The application is made on the basis that the defendant is a high-risk sex offender who should be kept under extended supervision to ensure the safety and protection of the community. This is the primary object of the Act (s 3(1)). It is proposed that the supervision order would impose conditions that, in part, would reflect another object of the Act, namely, to encourage high risk offenders to undertake rehabilitation (s 3(2)).

3. An extended supervision order may be made if a number of matters set out in s 5B of the Act are established, including:

(d) the Supreme Court is satisfied to a high degree of probability that the offender poses an unacceptable risk of committing another serious [sex] offence if not kept under supervision under the order.

4. The proceedings commenced with the filing of a summons on 15 December 2025. Following a preliminary hearing, Boulten J made an interim supervision order on 8 April 2026: State of NSW v McCall [2026] NSWSC 334. That order remains in force, having been twice extended so that it is now due to expire on 17 July 2026.

5. The final hearing took place on 8 July 2026. Ms P Boyle appeared as counsel for the plaintiff and Mr R Pettit appeared as counsel for the defendant. I am grateful for their very focussed, helpful and practical written and oral submissions.

6. Counsel for the defendant clearly stated from the beginning that his client did not oppose the making of an extended supervision order, provided the Court is satisfied that the statutory requirements for the making of such an order under the Act were established. Matters in issue were the duration of such an order and, ultimately, only two of the proposed conditions. [1]

Summary of outcome

7. For the reasons which follow, I am satisfied that an extended supervision order should be made for a period of 4 years upon all of the conditions proposed by the plaintiff except for one concerning oversight of his financial affairs.

Background

8. Boulten J set out the background to the matter in his judgment:

[5] The defendant’s background was set out comprehensively by the parties in their joint statement of agreed facts (“Agreed Facts”). The salient features follow.

[6] The defendant is a 31 year old man with a history of sexual offending. He grew up in Wollongong, New South Wales, where he enjoyed a relatively stable upbringing with his parents, with whom he consistently attended church during his formative years.

[7] The defendant exhibited various behavioural issues throughout his childhood, such as impulsivity, a poor attention span, emotional outbursts, a difficulty relating to others and sensory outbursts. Despite these problems, he commenced secondary education at a selective school in Wollongong, where he attended until year 11 when he left intending to study at a technology college.

[8] Regrettably, his plans went awry because he came into conflict with the law and ended up in detention. The defendant’s first set of offences involved very serious sexual violence on three young women. On 26 October 2012, he was sentenced by Judge Conlon SC DCJ in Wollongong District Court for the following offences:

(1) 1 count of recklessly inflicting actual bodily harm with intent to have sexual intercourse contrary to s 61K(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW);

(2) 1 count of aggravated sexual assault – threat to inflict actual bodily harm with weapon, contrary to s 61J of the Crimes Act; and

(3) 1 count of take or detail person with intent to obtain advantage contrary to s 86(1)(b) of the Crimes Act.

9. I interpolate that the facts in relation to these offences were described in the joint statement of agreed facts as follows: [2]

The first count was an offence of recklessly inflicting actual bodily harm with intent to have sexual intercourse. That offence related to the defendant approaching and attacking a 23-year-old woman. The defendant forced the victim to the ground and made sexually suggestive remarks, but he was eventually overpowered by the victim. Once this occurred the defendant walked away from the victim.

The second count, which was an offence of detaining a person for an advantage, occurred in similar circumstances. The defendant approached a 15 year-old girl who was walking her dog. The defendant grabbed her from behind and placed a knife against her throat, using his other hand to cover her eyes. The defendant forced the victim from the path and made demands in terms of sexual contact, to which the victim complied out of fear. The third count, aggravated sexual assault, consisted of the defendant forcing this victim to engage in penile-oral intercourse with him.

10. Returning to the narrative from the judgment of Boulten J:

[9] The defendant was ordered to serve an aggregate term of imprisonment of five years and nine months, with a non-parole period of three years and nine months, all to be served in juvenile detention.

[10] Then, on 14 November 2016, the defendant was convicted of and sentenced for possessing child abuse material contrary to s 91H(2) of the Crimes Act for which he received a good behaviour bond for 4 years.

[11] While he was subject to the bond, the defendant committed further offending. He was convicted of the following offences on 17 November 2019:

(1) 2 counts of failing to comply with reporting obligations contrary to s 17(1) of the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 (“CPOR Act”); and

(2) 1 count of possessing child abuse material contrary to s 91H(2) of the Crimes Act.

[12] He was sentenced for these offences at Liverpool Local Court to a term of imprisonment of 12 months, with a non-parole period of 4 months.

The index offending

[13] While on parole, the defendant committed the following further offences:

(1) 1 count of using a carriage service to plan/procure for sex (person under 16 years of age) contrary to s 474.25C of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth);

(2) 2 counts of using a carriage service to groom for sex (person under 16 years of age) contrary to s 474.27(1) of the Criminal Code Act;

(3) 1 count of using a carriage service to make child abuse material available contrary to s 474.22(1) of the Criminal Code Act; and

(4) 2 offences on a s 166 certificate, namely: 1 count of failing to comply with reporting obligations contrary to s 17(1) of the CPOR Act; and 1 count of contravening a prohibition order contrary to s 13(1) of the Child Protection (Offenders Prohibition Orders) Act 2004 (NSW).

[14] Notably, the 2 offences against s 474.27(1) of the Criminal Code Act enliven this Court’s jurisdiction. In particular, they constitute a “serious offence” by reference to its meaning in ss 4 and 5(1)(b5) of the Act.

[15] The underlying facts of these offences are as follows.

[16] In brief, the defendant initiated contact (under an alias) with two children on the online social messaging platform Discord. He discussed sexual topics, requested explicit images and sent an explicit image of his own. The sentencing judge, Haesler SC DCJ, found the defendant made use of a pretence to gain trust and he ultimately offended for the sole purpose of his own sexual gratification.

[17] On 24 March 2022, as an adult, the defendant was sentenced to an effective term of imprisonment of 4 years with a non-parole period of 3 years which commenced on 25 April 2021 and expired on 24 April 2024. Following a correction pursuant to s 19AHA of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), the defendant’s total sentence will expire on 24 April 2026. He will by then have served the entirety of the sentence – having failed to convince the Commonwealth Parole decision makers that he should be released on parole.

[18] Even whilst serving this current sentence, he has demonstrated a propensity to breach the gaol’s rules. After pornographic material was found in his cell, he pleaded guilty to failing to comply with correctional centre routine on 3 May 2024, although it is noted that no child abuse material was located as part of that search.

11. It is noted that not only were the offences against s 474.27(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth) within the definition of “serious sex offence” and therefore constituted a “serious offence” under the Act, so too were the offences against s 61K(a) and 61J of the Crimes Act for which the defendant was sentenced in 2012. [3]

The statutory framework

12. His Honour set out the statutory framework. Some of this, which is relevant at this final hearing, was as follows:

[19] The primary object of the Act, as set out in s 3(1), is to provide for the extended supervision and continuing detention of high-risk sex offenders and high-risk violent offenders so as to ensure the safety and protection of the community.

[20] The secondary object of the Act is set out in s 3(2), which is to encourage high-risk sex offenders and high-risk violent offenders to undertake rehabilitation.

[21] These proceedings are concerned only with the Act’s application to high-risk sex offenders, not high-risk violent offenders.

[22] These two objects of the Act are protective, not punitive.

[23] Section 5B of the Act provides when the Court may make an ESO. While this preliminary hearing is concerned with the potential imposition of an ISO, not an ESO, s 5B is still of principal importance for these present purposes. The whole of the provision follows:

5B Making of extended supervision orders — unacceptable risk

The Supreme Court may make an order for the supervision in the community of a person (an extended supervision order) if—

(a) the person is an offender who is serving (or who has served) a sentence of imprisonment for a serious offence either in custody or under supervision in the community, and

(b) the person is a supervised offender (within the meaning of section 5I), and

(c) an application for the order is made in accordance with section 5I, and

(d) the Supreme Court is satisfied to a high degree of probability that the offender poses an unacceptable risk of committing another serious offence if not kept under supervision under the order.

[24] Within this context, s 4 of the Act defines a “serious offence” as either a “serious sex offence” or a “serious violence offence”. A “serious sex offence” is defined by s 5(1) of the Act to include, relevantly, an offence against s 474.27 of the Criminal Code Act.

13. As mentioned above, the definition of a “serious sex offence” also includes offences against s 61J and s 61K of the Crimes Act.

14. His Honour then referred to s 5I(1) of the Act as providing that an application for an extended supervision order may be made only in respect of a “supervised offender”. That term is defined in s 5I(2) and includes in sub-par (a)(i), a person serving a sentence of imprisonment for a “serious offence”.

15. The concept of an “unacceptable risk” in s 5B(d) has been explained in many of the authorities. The summary provided by Chen J in State of NSW v O’Hara (Final) [2024] NSWSC 225 at [34] is sufficient for present purposes:

[34] The concept of an “unacceptable risk” has, unsurprisingly, been the subject of considerable judicial consideration, which establishes the following:

(1) The phrase is to be given its everyday meaning within its context, having regard to the objects of the Act: Lynn at [55]-[58].

(2) What the Court must find to be unacceptable is the risk that the offender poses of committing another serious offence if not kept under supervision; that is, an assessment of the likelihood in the absence of any supervision: Lynn at [51] and [55]; State of New South Wales v Donovan [2015] NSWCA 280 at [24]. That finding provides the basis for imposing control on the offender: Lynn at [127].

(3) The interests of the offender in liberty and privacy are not relevant to the assessment of whether there is an “unacceptable risk”, but can be taken into account when considering whether to make, under s 9 of the Act, an ESO or to dismiss the application: Lynn at [44], [143] and [148]-[149].

(4) Unacceptability of risk “involves considerations of both likelihood of the risk eventuating, and the gravity of the risk that may eventuate”: State of New South Wales v Simcock (Final) [2016] NSWSC 1805 at [71]; State of New South Wales v Chaplin [2019] NSWSC 471 at [15]. The nature of the risk “posed ha[s] to be assessed by reference to past conduct, the seriousness of the possible future conduct and the period over which the risk may come to fruition”: Lynn at [126].

(5) An offender may pose an unacceptable risk, even where the likelihood of committing another serious offence is low, if the likely consequences of such an offence are very grave: State of New South Wales v Kamm (Final) [2016] NSWSC 1 at [41] and [43]; Golding at [16]; State of New South Wales v Devaney (Final) [2022] NSWSC 60 at [73].

Mandatory considerations in section 9(3)

16. Section 9(3) provides that in determining whether or not to make an extended supervision order, it is mandatory to have regard to certain matters there listed in addition to any other matters the Court considers relevant. Many of the listed matters are to be found in Exhibit PM-1 to the affidavit of Patrick Mullane dated 11 December 2025. It formed part of the evidence before Boulten J and is before the Court again in this hearing. It is therefore convenient to adopt portions of his Honour’s summary of that material found within his judgment (at [40]-[59]).

Expert assessments as to the relevant matters pertaining to the defendant: s 9(3)(c)

Risk Assessment Report by Amber Ryan

[40] Ms Amber Ryan, a senior psychologist, examined the defendant and prepared a RAR dated 4 August 2025. The RAR identified various dynamic factors which were said to be relevant to the defendant’s risk of sexual re-offending, namely, his sexual preoccupation, deviance and violent ideation; difficulties with intimate and non-intimate relationships and capacity for relationship stability; problems with self-awareness and treatment; negative emotionality and challenges with stress; and difficulties with supervision.

[41] Of importance, Ms Ryan noted that if the defendant was to re-offend, it may involve “contact” sexual offending. Those most at risk are females aged between 14 and 30 who are either unknown to him, known to him through sexual relations or underage females who he has met online and managed to procure to engage in sexual activity.

[42] Such offending, according to Ms Ryan, could result from a romantic relationship breakdown, conflict with a romantic partner or romantic interest or rejection from a romantic person of interest. It would likely involve premeditation and sexual violence, if such offending did materialise. In the context of a current sexual partner, being one of the “at risk” types of people, it would likely occur in the context of him first seeking out consensual avenues to fulfil his sexually sadistic interests.

[43] Ms Ryan further identified risks of non-contact offending. The defendant may re-offend by acquiring, or even creating, child abuse material to fulfil his deviant interests.

[44] He was, overall, assessed in the well above average risk range for sexual offending – relative to other adult male sexual offenders. He was also assessed as having a high density of unaddressed criminogenic needs.

Report by Corrective Services NSW as to reasonable and practicable management in the community of the defendant: s 9(3)(d1)

Risk Management Report by Vicki McCarthy

[45] Ms Vicki McCarthy, Team Leader of the ESO Team of Corrective Services NSW, prepared a RMR on 3 September 2025.

[46] Ms McCarthy identified the following matters with respect to the defendant’s risk:

(1) the defendant has expressed concerns as to how an ESO would affect his plans and he has minimal insight into his offending behaviours and associated risk factors. For instance, his post-release plans include university study in computer game development and, although he could identify this would involve participating in online gaming and chat rooms, he was unable to identify this as a potential risk factor;

(2) on release from custody, the defendant would be supported by his parents and a community-based psychologist;

(3) the defendant has been known to Community Corrections since 2016. On completion of his most recent supervision in 2020, the defendant was considered difficult to engage and communicate with, and as having shown little insight into the impact of his offending;

(4) it is noted the defendant intends to continue to engage with his current community-based psychologist post-release, who he has worked with for several years. He appeared reluctant to be referred to the Community Sex Offender Programs and advised that he would only engage if required;

(5) if subject to an ESO, the defendant would have weekly contact with his departmental supervising officer (“DSO”) in addition to receiving monthly unannounced home visits. The NSW Police Extended Supervision Order Investigations Team would also be involve in supervising his compliance with the conditions and monitoring his behaviour in the community by means of covert observation and face-to-face contact;

(6) the defendant would be encouraged to engage with his community-based psychologist and will be referred to the Community Sex Offender Programs if additional intervention is required; and

(7) if imposed, search conditions would enable the defendant’s electronic devices to be searched to monitor his compliance with internet access and non-association conditions and directions. Searches of his residence may occur to monitor for potential undeclared electronic devices, restricted material and weapons.

Statistical or other assessments: s 9(3)(d)

[47] Ms Ryan assessed the defendant utilising a number of different actuarial risk assessment tools.

[48] In the RAR, the defendant was found to be within in the well above average range on the STATIC-99R. He had a high density of criminogenic needs on the STABLE-2007. Finally, a composite assessment of his risk/needs placed him in the well above average risk level.

[49] Ms McCarthy noted in the RMR that the defendant was assessed on 16 October 2023 as being a medium risk for general re-offending on the Level of Service Inventory – Revised (LSI-R).

Reports by Corrective Services NSW as to managing the defendant in the community: s 9(3)(d1)

17. This factor was addressed in Ms McCarthy’s Risk Management Report of 3 September 2025 (see above).

Treatment and rehabilitation programs and the defendant’s participation as well as options for future participation: s 9(3)(e) and (e1)

[51] The defendant participated in the High Intensity Sexual Offenders Program (“HISOP”) between 12 December 2022 and 26 February 2024 while at the Metropolitan Special Programs Centre. An interim HISOP Treatment Report dated 9 February 2024 and an addendum report dated 31 May 2024 described the defendant in quite a positive manner. He was observed as being attentive and engaged, while he also volunteered helpful suggestions, challenged unhelpful perspectives and asked considered questions. Throughout the program, he displayed a continuing understanding of the content.

[52] Having said that, the defendant continued to justify some of his offending patterns and deviant interests during the HISOP. As noted previously, items of a sexual nature were found during searches of the defendant’s cell – this occurred whilst he was participating in the HISOP. The defendant noted some of that seized material was “for the purpose of future research and sexual gratification”.

[53] The defendant has expressed an interest in continuing sex offending focussed intervention. As of December 2024, he was engaged with a community psychologist and continued to review the HISOP content. On 14 March 2024, he was placed on the Forensic Psychology Service Maintenance Waitlist, and, in May 2024, it was recommended that he be referred to the Treatment and Rehabilitation Clinic facilitated by NSW Community Forensic Mental Health Services and Forensic Psychology Services in the Community Maintenance Program when he is released from custody.

Likelihood defendant will comply with an ESO: s 9(3)(e2)

[54] The plaintiff submitted that there is a real prospect that the defendant may not comply with the obligations of an ESO. However, in saying that, the plaintiff has acknowledged this factor ultimately operates neutrally between the parties and is more relevant to the issue of conditions, if applicable. The defendant has emphasised that the defendant will be living with his pro-social parents and will continue his course of therapy with the well-regarded psychologist, Graeme Randall. His clinical relationship with Dr Randall was established when the defendant was in custody and continues.

Defendant’s compliance with past parole (or ESO): s 9(3)(f)

[55] The defendant has not been subject to an ESO before. However, he has breached his parole on previous occasions, which operates in favour of an order being made, as does the defendant’s record of breaching prison discipline.

Compliance with obligations under child protection legislation: s 9(3)(g)

[56] As noted above, the defendant has been convicted and sentenced in relation to breaches of his obligations under both the CPOR Act and the Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 (NSW).

Defendant’s criminal history and any pattern of offending disclosed: s 9(3)(h)

18. See above under “Background”.

Views of sentencing courts: s 9(3)(h1)

[58] The plaintiff’s submissions and the Agreed Facts both referred to selected remarks of Haesler DCJ when he sentenced the defendant for the index offending.

[59] The remarks of Conlon DCJ from sentence on 26 October 2012 were tendered as Tab 10 to Exhibit PM-1. While the plaintiff relied on these remarks, it was simultaneously acknowledged that they provided limited assistance to this Court given the paucity of material available from the time of that offending. The seriousness of the aggravated sexual assault is illustrated by his Honour’s following observation:

“… the offences committed against [the victim] on 14 December demonstrated the escalating nature of his offending. There was now some degree of planning as he had armed himself for the purpose. The knife was not only produced but placed against her throat. It appears the victim managed to calm the offender and he placed the knife in his pocket although he made sure the victim remained aware of its presence. She was detained for a prolonged period, and the offender placed his penis into her mouth on three separate occasions.’”

Reports of the experts appointed following the preliminary hearing

19. Boulten J made an order pursuant to s 7(4) of the Act appointing two experts to conduct separate examinations of the defendant and to furnish reports to the Court on the results. Reports have been received from Dr Timothy Roach, consultant forensic psychiatrist, dated 8 June 2026 and Dr Katie Seidler, clinical and forensic psychologist, dated 4 June 2026.

20. Counsel for the defendant accepted that the plaintiff had accurately summarised the results of the examinations by the court-appointed experts. The following is drawn from the submissions of counsel for the plaintiff.

The Roach Report

[14] Dr Roach assessed the Defendant on 19 May 2026.

[15] In overview, Dr Roach concluded:

(a) the Defendant has a “well above average risk or high risk of committing a further serious sex offence”;

(b) the Defendant has more risk factors than protective factors;

(c) the Defendant’s risk could not be effectively managed in the community without an ESO; and

(d) an ESO of at least three to four years is required to adequately manage the Defendant’s risk.

Psychiatric and psychological diagnosis

[16] Dr Roach found that the Defendant meets the diagnostic criteria for paedophilic disorder, sexual sadism disorder, and autism spectrum disorder (ASD).

[17] Dr Roach expressed the opinion that based on the Defendant’s current symptoms, lack of insight into his condition, his current treatment plan, and his libido, “he is likely to experience ongoing symptoms and meet criteria for paedophilic disorder for several years”. Further, in respect of sexual sadism disorder, Dr Roach was of the opinion that “this condition is not in remission and that he will likely not reach remission for several years, particularly when one considers his current treatment regimen”.

[18] Whilst noting that the Defendant presents with some narcissistic features, on the information before him, Dr Roach was unable to diagnose him narcissistic personality disorder. Similarly, Dr Roach concluded that he was unable to “reliably make a diagnosis” of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) although notes that there has been a historical diagnosis of ADHD recorded in the Defendant’s medical notes.

[19] Dr Roach opined that the Defendant’s combination of diagnoses (most specifically the paedophilic disorder and the sexual sadism disorder) with his narcissistic personality traits, significantly increase his risk of committing a serious sexual offence, though Dr Roach notes that this risk may fluctuate over time. In that regard, Dr Roach considers that the Defendant’s ASD and his narcissistic personality traits “may more easily create an environment or situation in which [the Defendant] is likely to commit a serious sex offence”.

[20] With respect to his current treatment regimen, Dr Roach considered that it is “likely insufficient to effectively mitigate his risk of committing a further serious sex offence”, noting that the High Intensity Sex Offender Program (HISOP) program, completed by the Defendant whilst in custody, and individual therapy, has likely only been partially effective. Further that, on the Defendant’s own account, “progress in therapy has been slow”, and Dr Roach explains that this is “understandable given his personality vulnerabilities (narcissistic traits) and diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder, which likely make it harder for [the Defendant] to self-reflect and engage in conversations around past offending behaviour”.

Risk Assessments

[21] Using the Static-99R actuarial risk assessment instrument, Dr Roach assessed the Defendant’s risk of sexual reoffending as in the “Well Above Average” risk category, relative to other male offenders.

[22] Dr Roach also used the Risk of Sexual Violence Protocol Version 2 (RSVP-V2), and assessed the Defendant as having “high loading of ‘Nature of Sexual Violence’ risk factor items”. Protectively, the Defendant was scored by Dr Roach as having “absence of problems related to stable accommodation and problems with substance use”. Although, Dr Roach noted that the Defendant’s sexual offending “indicates a degree of chronicity” and a “diversity” of sexual violence including contact and non-contact offences, the use of weapons and the use of both physical and psychological coercion”.

Comments regarding insight

[23] Dr Roach notes that during his assessment, the Defendant “appeared to minimise his history of sexual offending”, including that he “frequently focused on the behaviours of others and he appeared to externalise responsibility”. Dr Roach considered that the Defendant demonstrated “problems with insight regarding future factors that may lead to offending behaviour (for example, he stated that his main risk factor for future offending was social isolation, and he appeared reluctant to consider biological treatments for management of his paedophilic disorder)”.

[24] Dr Roach records that in relation to his most recent offending, the Defendant raised COVID-19 lockdown, loneliness, his restrictions, missing a job opportunity (due to his then-supervisor not getting back to him quickly enough), and that explained that these circumstances, combined with “sexual frustration” and a need for “sexual relief”, led to “a whole bunch of bad decisions”. Further, it is noted that the Defendant “did not make any comments about how his conduct may have affected his victims” and that instead, the Defendant spoke at length about his restrictions and stated that the offending and the associated restrictions makes him feel like “a monster”.

Recommendations

[25] Dr Roach is of the view that an ESO of at least three to four years is required to adequately manage the Defendant’s risk. Dr Roach explains that this is because the Defendant “will likely require at a minimum, two to three years of treatment to manage his symptoms and mental health conditions, and at least one year of additional monitoring once his clinical conditions are either in remission or appropriately treated”.

The Seidler Report

[26] Dr Seidler assessed the Defendant on 22 May 2026.

[27] In overview, Dr Seidler concluded:

(a) the Defendant is a “well above average risk of future sexual offending relative to other convicted sexual offenders”;

(b) the Defendant has “a range of significant risks related to sexual recidivism and very limited protective influences”;

(c) the Defendant’s risk “cannot be adequately managed in the community without an Order” and accordingly, Dr Seidler is “in favour of an ESO being made by the Court”; and

(d) an ESO of four years is “considered appropriate given the risks in this case”.

Psychological diagnosis

[28] Dr Seidler found that the Defendant meets the diagnostic criteria for Paraphilic Disorder (with paedophilic, hebephilic and sadistic features), and that rather than ASD, a Personality Disorder is “a more apt diagnosis” for the Defendant.

29. Leaving diagnostic labels to one side, Dr Seidler notes that:

[The Defendant] is a disconnected and isolated individual, who struggles to make and maintain effective, lasting, reciprocal and meaningful relationships with others. As such, he tends to be self-focussed and hedonistic in his focus and this, coupled with entrenched sexually deviant interests, impulsivity and a lack of empathy, has meant [the Defendant] is a very dangerous individual, who has been before the Court on a number of occasions for sexual offences targeting both adults and children in various contexts.

Risk Assessments

[30] In addition to an interview, Dr Seidler conducted psychometric testing by way of the Static-99R, Stable-2007, Violence Risk Scale: Sexual Offending (VRS-SO) and Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for Violence Risk – Sexual Offence Version (SAPROF), with results as follows:

(a) In respect of the Static-99R, Dr Seidler assessed the Defendant’s risk in the “Well Above Average” risk category, relative to other male offenders.

(b) As to dynamic risk factors, according to the Stable-2007, the Defendant was rated as “presenting with serious concerns” on all items that are considered to elevate risk (including, an absence of significant social influences, poor capacity for relationship stability, impulsivity, and deviant sexual preferences).

(c) The Defendant’s scores on both the pre- and post-treatment ratings of the VRS-SO, incorporating both static and dynamic factors, were also at the “Well Above Average level”. The Defendant scored in the 98.6 percentile, suggesting that he scored higher than almost 99% of the sample of offenders (and the Seidler report notes that 67.8% of offenders with this score reoffended sexually within five years and 78% were convicted of a further sexual offence within ten years).

(d) On the SAPROF, which is designed to consider protective factors over a six month period, the Defendant “did not score as receiving the full benefit of any of the items on the SAPROF” and “most items were rated as being absent”. Although, Dr Seidler acknowledged that the presence of “some prosocial attitudes”, in addition to some “prosocial sexual interests” and some positive interpersonal relationships (including from his parents and a small number of friends), do offer “some protective benefit”.

[31] In summary, taking into account the various risk assessment measures outlined above, Dr Seidler considered that the Defendant posed “a well above average risk of future sexual offending relative to other convicted sexual offenders, with a range of significant risks related to sexual recidivism and very limited protective influences”.

[32] With respect to risk, Dr Seidler concluded:

The primary risks in this case pertain to [the Defendant’s] entrenched and long-standing concerns with sexual deviancy, coupled with distorted attitudes and poor boundaries, poor coping and relationship skills, impulsivity and egocentricity, in addition to a lack of empathy skills associated with a disorder of personality.

Risk Scenarios

[33] Dr Seidler noted that the Defendant “may offend against either adult or child victims, but he is more likely to target females, which may include those known to him or strangers”. Any future offending could be “planned or impulsive and opportunistic, depending on the situation and it may involve direct contact offending, as well as non-contact and online offences, with the former potentially being violent and sadistic in nature”.

[34] Dr Seidler believes that the Defendant’s risk would be increased in circumstances of stress and/or distress, emotional loneliness and isolation, and/or in circumstances where he has a lack of appropriate sexual outlets. Dr Seidler identifies that it is likely that the Defendant will demonstrate a range of “leakage” or warning behaviours as his risk increases.

Comments regarding insight

[35] Dr Seidler noted that the Defendant’s account of his sexual offending is “minimised, irresponsible and distorted. It does not account for the level of sexual deviancy involved and is surprisingly superficial given the amount of specialist treatment he has had access to over the years”.

[36] Dr Seidler is of the view that the Defendant has “learned to sanitise what he tells others about his sexual interests, in order to deflect attention” and that “it seems that [the Defendant] has been willing to deceive and manipulate authorities and treatment providers, as well as others in his life”.

[37] Dr Seidler described the Defendant’s breadth of understanding in relation to sexual risks for reoffending as “woefully inadequate” and that “[g]iven the extent of treatment that [the Defendant] has received over the years, his understanding of relapse prevention is highly concerning”.

Recommendations

[38] Dr Seidler is “in favour of a longer order” and considers that a 4-year ESO is “appropriate given the risks in this case”.

[39] While Dr Seidler is supportive of an ESO being imposed, unlike Dr Roach, she is critical of a number of the conditions … .

Further background – the defendant’s performance under the interim supervision order

21. The following summary from the submissions of counsel for the defendant is helpful in understanding how the defendant has coped in the community following his release from custody and while he has been subject to the interim supervision order: [4]

Since his release, the defendant has received ongoing support from his parents, Kim and Michael McCall. He has also engaged in regular psychological treatment with Graeme Randall. He has had the benefit of his parents’ ongoing love and support throughout his time in juvenile detention and more recent periods of imprisonment, notwithstanding their views of his offending. Both the defendant’s mother and father have expressed their commitment to his long-term rehabilitation and reintegration into the community. It is their intention to help the defendant comply with any order made by this Court. His parents have each written a letter in support of this application.

The defendant is otherwise unmarried and childless. He has limited social connections. He is unemployed and is not currently undertaking any formal study. He has expressed an interest in studying in the future. He is in generally good physical health and has no history of problematic drug or alcohol use. Since his release from custody, he has not used illicit drugs or alcohol.

Further, he remains engaged with his psychologist, Graeme Randall, for the ongoing management and treatment of his psychiatric and psychological conditions. He considers this psychological support to be beneficial.

Determination

22. The prerequisites for the making of an extended supervision order in s 5B(a)-(c) are each satisfied in this case. The defendant conceded this. [5]

23. As for the unacceptable risk issue in s 5B(d), the following from the submissions of the plaintiff provides a useful summary of matters of which I am satisfied.

[11] In light of the evidence of the court-appointed experts (explored in detail below at [14] to [39]), the Court would be satisfied to a high degree of probability that the Defendant poses an unacceptable risk of committing another serious offence if he is not kept under supervision for the following reasons:

(a) Firstly, the nature and seriousness of the Defendant’s past offending. The Defendant has demonstrated a longstanding sexual interest in children as well as a history of violent sexual offending against adults (including strangers). There remains a risk of both contact and online offending. This offending has continued despite previous sentences of imprisonment and Child Protection orders under the Child Protection (Offenders Prohibition Orders) Act 2004 (NSW).

(b) Secondly, the Defendant meets the diagnostic criteria for a number of conditions. On Dr Roach’s account the Defendant meets the diagnostic criteria for paedophilic disorder, sexual sadism disorder, and ASD. Meanwhile, Dr Seidler considers he meets the diagnostic criteria for Paraphilic Disorder, and Personality Disorder. Both experts emphasise that the combination of diagnoses increase the Defendant’s risk profile, and that alongside his particular personality traits, progress in therapy to date has been slow. Those diagnoses and his treatment resistance increase the risk of him committing further serious sex offences.

(c) Thirdly, the Defendant has been assessed by Dr Roach as having a “well above average risk or high risk of committing a further serious sex offence”, and by Dr Seidler as having a “well above average” risk of future sexual offending. There has been no reduction in the Defendant’s risk since the interim application (the RAR at that time noting that the Defendant was a “well above average” risk on the STATIC-99R in respect of sexual reoffending).

(d) Fourthly, the Defendant has demonstrated a concerning lack of insight into the wrongfulness of his offending. For example, Dr Seidler notes that the Defendant’s "account of his sexual offending is minimised, irresponsible and distorted. It does not account for the level of sexual deviancy involved and is surprisingly superficial given the amount of specialist treatment he has had access to over the years”. Further, that this lack of insight is noteworthy in circumstances where the Defendant has “has already completed relevant, specialist and intensive sexual offender treatment…he has gained little through this process”. In this regard, a further period of supervision would assist in embedding pro-social patterns and behaviours.

(e) Fifthly, whilst it is acknowledged that the Defendant has engaged with his treating psychologist since his release from custody on the ISO, any progress to date is modest and recent. An ESO would facilitate the further opportunity for the Defendant to participate in targeted intervention to address his sex offending, under the guidance of supervision.

(f) Sixthly, the Defendant has had a history of difficulties engaging with supervision. He has breached parole orders and Child Protection obligations previously (breaching parole in 2016, and both parole and Child Protection obligations in 2020). Whilst there have been signs of recent improvement, there is yet to be any established pattern of unproblematic engagement with supervision.

g) Seventhly, the Court appointed experts both opined that the risk posed by the Defendant cannot be adequately managed in the community without an order, and that an ESO would be appropriate in this case. Further, both experts consider that in the circumstances of this case, a longer order is required, and that four years is an appropriate period.

24. I note the concession by Mr Pettit that the making of an extended supervision order is not opposed provided the Court is satisfied that the statutory requirements have been established. [6] .

25. Being satisfied of these matters, I conclude that it is in the interests of the protection and safety of the community that the discretion is exercised in favour of making an extended supervision order.

Duration

26. The following are extracts from a single lengthy paragraph in the report of Dr Roach in which he provided an assessment of the appropriate duration of an extended supervision order: [7]

There are limits in accurately describing how one’s risk may change over time (versus appraising risk at a point in time) and it should be highlighted that the risk assessments used and referred to in this report should be repeated every six to 12 months as dynamic risk factors can change over time (and thus overall risk can increase and decrease). …

In my opinion, Mr McCall’s main risk factors for future reoffending include his diagnoses of paedophilic disorder and sexual sadism disorder. These conditions are not in remission and are, in my view, suboptimally treated. They are likely to remain active diagnoses for several years even with effective treatment. …

Mr McCall also holds narcissistic personality traits which will likely hinder his ability to self-reflect and thus slow his progress in psychological therapy and the development of insight. I note that historically he has had difficulty complying with supervision and conditions and that he has reoffended when on parole. In my opinion, the management of Mr McCall’s risk will require a significant period of supervision during which he engages in psychological therapy and, ideally, anti-libidinal treatment. …

Having regard to Mr McCall’s risk profile including his static and dynamic risk factors associated with sexual recidivism, I am of the opinion that an ESO would likely be required for a period of at least three to four years to adequately manage his risk of reoffending. Mr McCall will likely require at a minimum, two to three years of treatment to manage his symptoms and mental health conditions, and at least one year of additional monitoring once his clinical conditions are either in remission or appropriately treated. (Emphasis added)

27. Dr Seidler provided the following opinion on the subject:

Mr. McCall's risks are enduring and significant and as stated, it is my view that external strategies will be the most effective in managing and containing his risk to the community going forward. Until Mr. McCall develops an internal motivation and is actively using the strategies he has been taught in treatment, there will be utility in an Order that contains and regulates his activity in the community. Therefore, I am in favour of a longer Order**. I am aware the Crown is seeking a four year Order and this is considered appropriate given the risks in this case.** (Emphasis added)

28. Counsel for the defendant argued that a term of three years was within the range identified by Dr Roach and fully accommodated the treatment and monitoring he proposed. If the objects of the Act, an extended supervision order being protective and not punitive in nature, could be met by the shorter term, then the additional restriction of the defendant’s liberty for a fourth year would not be justified. [8]

29. Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that four years accorded with the opinions of both experts and should be the duration imposed.

30. It is significant that in nominating a period of “at least three to four years”, Dr Roach explained that the defendant “will likely require at a minimum, two to three years of treatment to manage his symptoms and mental health conditions, and at least one year of additional monitoring once his clinical conditions are either in remission or appropriately treated”. [9]

31. Understanding Dr Roach’s opinion is qualified in that way, and having regard to Dr Seidler’s opinion, it is my view that a period of no less than four years is appropriate.

Conditions

32. Section 11 of the Act provides a power for conditions to be imposed under interim and extended supervision orders. It provides a non-exhaustive list of possible conditions with only one condition being mandatory, namely that the offender is not to leave the State except with the approval of the Commissioner of Corrective Services.

33. Counsel for the plaintiff referred to the following from the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Wilde v State of NSW [2015] NSWCA 28 at [53]:

Section 11 does not require that there must be a specific demonstrated link to the past offending which is the basis of the order made under the Act. Rather, the court must be satisfied, having regard to the scope, purpose and objects of the Act, that it is appropriate to impose a particular condition so as to address the risk of future offending of the type which was the basis of the order.

34. Counsel for the defendant submitted that the following matters (drawn from State of NSW v Wilkinson (Preliminary) [2020] NSWSC 1813 at [44]) should be considered in relation to the conditions proposed by the plaintiff but which the defendant contests: [10]

(a) an offender who has served their sentence retains a right to personal liberty, although that right is not absolute; (b) the Court must strike a balance between competing considerations; (c) a breach of any condition exposes the defendant to criminal liability; (d) conditions need not be linked to past offending, but must address the risk of future serious offending having regard to the scope, purpose and objects of the Act; (e) conditions must be directed to the prevention of serious offences, not criminal conduct generally; (f) conditions must not be unjustifiably onerous or punitive, nor a mere expression of State paternalism; (g) each condition must have “substantial work to do”, and a mere speculative possibility of utility will not suffice; and (h) the Court should impose conditions that are the least intrusive possible.

35. The opposition by the defendant to certain proposed conditions was submitted to be based upon those which were perceived to be “unjustifiably onerous” and/or incommensurate to the risk factors identified in the Risk Management Report. [11]

36. Emphasis was placed upon the secondary object of the Act, namely to “encourage” the rehabilitation of high-risk offenders: s 3(2). [12]

37. The Court was reminded of a passage in the judgment of Fullerton J in New South Wales v Bugmy [2017] NSWSC 855 at [89] where her Honour said:

The Court is entitled to expect that that the conditions the plaintiff proposes that Mr Bugmy be subject to are drafted to address what are identified in the evidence as the risk factors to his further violent offending (State of New South Wales v Burns [2014] NSWSC 1014 at [59]). The conditions must not be unjustifiably onerous or simply punitive (see Wilde v State of NSW (2015) 249 A Crim R 65; [2015] NSWCA 28 at [45] citing RA Hulme J in State of New South Wales v Green (Final) [2013] NSWSC 1003). Neither may they simply be an expression of State paternalism or imposed to meet what might be thought to be in the public interest in some generalised sense or because they might be a convenient or resource efficient means of the Department exercising supervision under an extended supervision order.

38. By the time of the final hearing, the parties had agreed on most of the conditions proposed, some with agreed amendments. The following remained in dispute.

Condition 19 – Not attend places selling/displaying sexually explicit material or providing sexual services/entertainment – or engage a sex worker [13]

39. The stated purpose of this condition is to permit the Departmental Supervising Officer (DSO) to monitor the defendant’s level of sexual preoccupation which is a risk factor of clinical significance. [14]

40. Counsel for the defendant opposed this condition. Dr Seidler had expressed doubt as to its utility because attendance at the kinds of locations mentioned were not related to his previous offending and had informed the particulars of his risk profile. Further, she considered it may, on its face, increase the “unacceptable risk” posed by the defendant by restricting his capacity to pursue potentially “healthy sexual outlet(s)”.

41. The difficulty with the defendant’s opposition to this condition is that, in so far as it pertains to sex workers, [15] Dr Seidler described it as “potentially problematic”. She wrote: [16]

There is no evidence available to me that Mr. McCall’s offending is related to accessing sex workers or that he has utilised the services of sex workers previously to fuel fantasies of offending. Engaging sex workers would be problematic if it was related to risk. For example, if Mr. McCall was role playing offending scenarios with sex workers or engaging with sex workers was stimulating fantasies related to offending that would serve to increase his risk. As this condition stands, it is unclear to me on what basis the supervising officer should make a decision as to whether to grant Mr. McCall access or not to a sex worker. Therefore, this condition is open to misuse in a manner that may not relate to risk management for Mr. McCall but rather, may impinge upon his human rights but may also increase his risk by increasing sexual frustration.

42. The affidavit of John Banton of 16 June 2026 provides from the practical perspective of considerable experience with intensive supervision regimes in the community, including under extended supervision orders, a further opinion in relation to this condition: [17]

[19] This condition allows supervisors to monitor for risk factors identified that RAR [sic] as part of the recommended risk management strategies. The defendant was diagnosed in 2015 with a sexual sadistic disorder and has endorsed an interest in coercive and violent sec. The RAR at page 59 details the dynamic factors that are relevant to his risk of sexual re-offending and that should be considered in the context of risk management strategies, including sexual preoccupation, sexual deviance and problems with sexually violent ideation.

[20] In my experience, monitoring for signs of increased risk factors helps ensure the safety of community members, including sex workers. The RAR at page 65 records that if the defendant re-offended, it may include a female with whom he is having sexual relations. This risk scenario includes situations where the defendant is seeking consensual avenues to fulfill sexually sadistic interests and that if consent is withdrawn or not provided to engage in more deviant sexual acts, ‘he may engage in impulsive and opportunistic behaviour, outside of the consensual contract resulting in a sexual offence using physical coercion’.

43. Having regard to the elevated level of risk the defendant poses and to descriptions such as that by Dr Seidler that he is “a very dangerous individual”, the preferred course is to take a conservative approach with emphasis upon the primary object of the Act (“to ensure the safety and protection of the community”). This condition should be included.

Condition 22 – Must provide details of financial affairs, including income & expenditure, if directed by DSO

44. This proposed condition is intended to permit a DSO to monitor financial behaviour which could be of concern and may indicate an escalation of risk, for example in relation to subscription services, potential use of money in exchange of services, or giving money to potential victims and/or other sex offenders. According to the plaintiff, it is especially significant in circumstances where the defendant in the past had explicit online conversations with children and has reportedly not been forthcoming about his behaviour when questioned.

45. Dr Seidler did not support the inclusion of this condition. She saw no value in it with respect to risk management, nor foresaw any particular influence of such a condition in increasing risk for the defendant. To her knowledge, there was no relationship between his expenditure and his sexual offending behaviour. [18]

46. Dr Roach supported the inclusion of this condition but opined about it in a very broad way without identifying anything specific by way of connection between the defendant’s income and expenditure and his risk of reoffending. [19]

47. Boulten J declined to make this a condition of the interim supervision order. His Honour did not accept it was sufficiently linked to the defendant’s risk profile.

48. I am of the same view. I also note that in Part I of the proposed conditions, there are broad powers for the DSO to monitor the defendant’s interaction with the internet and online services, subscriptions and accounts.

49. This condition will not be included.

Orders

1. Pursuant to ss 5B and 9(1)(a) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006, the defendant is to be subject to an extended supervision order for a period of four years from the date of this order.
2. Pursuant to s 11 of the Act, for the period of the extended supervision order, the defendant is to comply with the conditions set out in the Schedule annexed to this judgment.

Schedule - State of NSW v McCall (Final) [2026] NSWSC 803 (142 KB, pdf)

*********

Endnotes

Defendant’s written submissions (DWS) [4](a)-(c).

Joint Statement of Agreed Facts at [17]-[18].

Per s 5(1)(a) and (a1) of the Act.

Defendant written submissions (DWS) [8]-[10]

DWS [13].

DWS [4](a).

Dr Roach report at [103].

DWS [74].

Dr Roach report at [103].

DWS [22].

DWS [24]-[25].

DWS [27].

Engaging a sex worker was initially proposed condition 26 but it was deleted at the interim hearing stage and added to condition 19 where it logically belonged.

Banton affidavit, 16 June 2026, [18].

It pertains to sex workers following the deletion of proposed condition 26 prohibiting engaging the services of a sex worker without prior approval and incorporating that into proposed condition 22.

Dr Seidler report, p68.

Banton affidavit, 16 June 2026, CB tab 19, [19]-[20].

Dr Seidler report, [176], p71.

Dr Roach report, [102].