State of New South Wales v Vincent

Relevant provisions of the Act

1. Section 18A of the Act relevantly provides as follows: "18A Interim detention order The Supreme Court may make an order for the interim detention of an offender if, in proceedings on an application for a continuing detention order, it appears to the Court: (a) that the offender's current custody (if any) will expire before the proceedings are determined, and (b) that the matters alleged in the supporting documentation would, if proved, justify the making of an extended supervision order or continuing detention order."
2. I am satisfied that, at the time of the hearing, s 18A(a) was made out; the defendant was in custody at least until the next mention date of his current matters. Section 18A(b) entails a consideration of the legislative requirements for a CDO or ESO, and the material that is tendered by the plaintiff in support of the CDO. In respect of the making of a CDO, s 5C of the Act provides: "5C Making of continuing detention orders - unacceptable risk The Supreme Court may make an order for the continued detention of a person (a continuing detention 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 detained offender or supervised offender (within the meaning of section 13B), and (c) an application for the order is made in accordance with section 13B, and (d) the Supreme Court is satisfied to a high degree of probability that the person poses an unacceptable risk of committing another serious offence if not kept in detention under the order."
3. A "serious offence" is defined to include "a serious sex offence" (s 4), which, in turn, is defined to include an offence under Div 10 of Pt 3 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), which, in the case of an offence against an adult or a child, is punishable by imprisonment for 7 years or more (s 5(1)(a)(i)). The defendant was convicted of such an offence, pursuant to s 66C(3) of the Crimes Act, on 25 February 2015.
4. As to whether the defendant is a detained offender or a supervised offender, as required by s 5C(b), s 13B provides: "13B Application for continuing detention order (1) An application for a continuing detention order may be made only in respect of: (a) a detained offender, or (b) a supervised offender. (2) A detained offender is an offender who, when the application for a continuing detention order is made, is in custody (referred to in this Part as the offender's current custody): (a) while serving a sentence of imprisonment: (i) for a serious offence, or (ii) for an offence of a sexual nature, or (iii) for an offence under section 12, or (iv) for another offence which is being served concurrently or consecutively, or partly concurrently and partly consecutively, with one or more sentences of imprisonment (whether under a law of this State or another Australian jurisdiction) referred to in subparagraph (i), (ii) or (iii), or (b) under an existing continuing detention order, emergency detention order or interim detention order. (3) An application for a continuing detention order in respect of a detained offender may not be made more than 9 months before: (a) the end of the offender's total sentence, or (b) the expiry of the existing continuing detention order, as appropriate. (4) A supervised offender is an offender who, when the application for a continuing detention order is made, is an offender in lawful custody or under supervision: (a) under an extended supervision order or an interim supervision order who: (i) has been found guilty of an offence under section 12 in respect of that order, or (ii) because of altered circumstances, poses an unacceptable risk of committing a serious offence if the continuing detention order is not made, or (b) whose obligations under an extended supervision order or an interim supervision order have been suspended, or (c) under an interim detention order. (5) An application in respect of a supervised offender who is serving a sentence of imprisonment may not be made more than 9 months before the end of the person's total sentence. (6) The Supreme Court must not make a continuing detention order on an application referred to in subsection (4) (a) (ii) unless it is satisfied that circumstances have altered since the making of the extended supervision order or interim supervision order and those altered circumstances mean that there is an unacceptable risk of the offender committing a serious offence if the continuing detention order is not made. (7) Without limiting the matters that the Supreme Court may take into account for the purposes of subsection (6), it may take into account the failure to comply, or an allegation that the supervised offender has failed to comply, with any requirement of an extended supervision order or interim supervision order."
5. Section 12 provides: "12 Breach of supervision order A person who fails to comply with the requirements of an extended supervision order or interim supervision order is guilty of an offence. Maximum penalty: 500 penalty units or imprisonment for 5 years, or both."

The parties' submissions on the threshold issues

1. The plaintiff submitted in written and oral submissions prior to the hearing that the defendant meets the definition of both "detained offender" and "supervised offender" under s 13B. It submitted that the defendant qualified as a "detained offender" pursuant to s 13B(2)(a)(iv) of the Act, because he is serving a sentence of imprisonment for an offence which is being served consecutively with a sentence of imprisonment for an offence against s 12 of the Act. However, in subsequent written submissions, the plaintiff accepted that the defendant is not a "detained offender", but contended that he is a "supervised offender" pursuant to s 13B(4)(b), because at the time the application was filed, he was in "lawful custody" as defined in s 4(2) of the Act (being on remand for the charges which are before the Local Court at Wellington), and because his obligations under the ESO imposed by Harrison J on 30 June 2017 had been suspended. The defendant accepts that he qualifies as a "supervised offender" pursuant to s 13B(4)(b), for the same reasons advanced by the plaintiff. I concur with that conclusion.
2. The plaintiff further submits that s 13B(5) is satisfied by the summons having been filed before the defendant was to be released pursuant to the recognizance release order on 27 April 2020, since the term "total sentence" in ss 13B(3) and (5) "pick up" the expression "sentence of imprisonment" in ss 13B(2) and (5), so as to refer only to the custodial part of a sentence.
3. The defendant disputes that s 13B(5) is satisfied, submitting that the expression "total sentence" in ss 13B(3) and (5) has its ordinary meaning, which is "well-known to the courts", and does not mean only the part of a sentence of imprisonment that is comprised by the period in custody. Therefore, the defendant's "total sentence" does not expire until the expiration of the recognizance release order, on 27 April 2021, meaning that the application for a CDO does not come within s 13B(5), since it was made more than nine months before the total sentence expires, and must fail.
4. In support of this interpretation, the defendant relies upon decisions of this Court that consider the meaning of the expression "sentence of imprisonment" in the counterpart provision of the Act for applications for an ESO, s 5I, which provides as follows: "5I Application for extended supervision order (1) An application for an extended supervision order may be made only in respect of a supervised offender. (2) A supervised offender is an offender who, when the application for the order is made, is in custody or under supervision (referred to in this Part as the offender's current custody or supervision): (a) while serving a sentence of imprisonment: (i) for a serious offence, or (ii) for an offence of a sexual nature, or (iii) for an offence under section 12, or (iv) for another offence (whether under a law of this State or another Australian jurisdiction) that is being served concurrently or consecutively, or partly concurrently and partly consecutively, with one or more sentences of imprisonment referred to in subparagraph (i), (ii) or (iii), or (b) under an existing interim supervision order, extended supervision order, interim detention order or continuing detention order. (3) A person is taken to be serving a sentence of imprisonment whether the sentence is being served by way of full-time detention or intensive correction in the community (whether or not subject to a home detention condition) and whether the offender is in custody or on release on parole."
5. In State of New South Wales v TT (Preliminary) [2017] NSWSC 1797, Walton J considered a summons seeking orders that the defendant be subject to an ESO and, pending the final hearing of that application, an interim supervision order ("ISO"). Walton J was required to consider the application for the ISO, and certain other related proposed orders. The application was opposed. At the time that the summons was filed, on 14 November 2017, the defendant was serving a sentence following convictions for three counts of use carriage service. On each count, he had been sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment with the commencement date of the sentence for the first count being 4 February 2016 and the other two sentences staggered three months apart, so that the effective sentence was 2 years' imprisonment, expiring on 3 February 2018.
6. The sentencing judge had ordered that, pursuant to s 20(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), the defendant was to be released on a recognizance after serving 1 year and 2 months of the sentence, which was on 3 April 2017. Accordingly, the defendant had been residing in the community for about seven months at the time that the summons was filed. Walton J considered, therefore, whether the application complied with s 5I(2)(a), since the defendant was not in custody at the time the summons was filed.
7. Section 20(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1914 provides as follows: "(1) Where a person is convicted of a federal offence or federal offences, the court before which he or she is convicted may, if it thinks fit: … (b) sentence the person to imprisonment in respect of the offence or each offence but direct, by order, that the person be released, upon giving security of the kind referred to in paragraph (a) either forthwith or after he or she has served a specified period of imprisonment in respect of that offence or those offences that is calculated in accordance with subsection 19AF(1)."
8. Walton J concluded that, although the defendant was not incarcerated at the relevant time, he was nevertheless still "serving a sentence of imprisonment". His Honour found support for this conclusion in R v Carngham (1978) 140 CLR 487; [1978] HCA 48, in which Gibbs ACJ found that, for the purposes of s 5D of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), a sentence for a Commonwealth offence that incorporates a conditional release component is nevertheless a sentence of imprisonment. Section 5D of the Criminal Appeal Act provided, at that time: "The Attorney-General may appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal against any sentence pronounced by the Supreme Court or the District Court and the Court of Criminal Appeal may in its discretion vary the sentence and impose such sentence as to the said Court may seem proper."
9. The definition of "sentence" in s 2 included: "… any order made by the court of trial on conviction with reference to the person convicted, or his property, and any recommendation or order for deportation in the case of a person convicted; and the power of the Court of Criminal Appeal to pass any sentence includes a power to make any such order or recommendation."
10. Gibbs ACJ (Stephen and Aickin JJ agreeing) stated, at 492-3: "There can of course be no doubt that the sentence of imprisonment for two years which was imposed on the respondent in the present case was a sentence within the meaning of the Criminal Appeal Act. The question whether the order that the respondent be conditionally released after 10th October 1977 forms part of the sentence, or is collateral and distinct, although not easy of solution, permits only of brief discussion. In my opinion when a court acting under s. 20 (1) passes a sentence of imprisonment and orders the release of the convicted person after he has served a portion of that sentence it is not possible to sever the order for release and to treat it as something separate and distinct from the sentence of imprisonment. Such an order would be meaningless if it were not made in conjunction with the sentence of imprisonment to which it relates. On the other hand the sentence of imprisonment itself would have a materially different effect if it were not for the order for release. In these circumstances it seems to me that the order for release must be treated as a qualification of the sentence of imprisonment and that it is right to regard it as part of the sentence itself. Although there is some ambiguity in the concluding words of s. 20 (1), the phrase 'after he has served any portion of his sentence' in my opinion qualifies 'release', not 'order'. That is to say, the order must be made at the same time as the sentence is imposed, and not after portion of it has been served. From the moment when sentence is pronounced the convicted person is entitled to release after he has served portion of his sentence if he complies with the condition of the order. A sentence of two years' imprisonment simpliciter is quite different in its incidence and severity from a sentence of two years' imprisonment coupled with an order for conditional release after some months. The true nature of the sentence imposed can only be ascertained by looking at the order as a whole."
11. Walton J found, at [38], that although the High Court was considering the word "sentence" in a different legislative context, it was understood to mean a sentence of imprisonment. His Honour also noted, at [39], that in Weetra v Beshara (1987) 46 SASR 484, the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia held that a sentence of 6 months' imprisonment, in which the sentencing court had ordered the offender's immediate release pursuant to s 20(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1914, nevertheless was a "sentence of imprisonment".
12. As to the meaning of s 5I(3) of the Act, Walton J said, at [43]: "I accept the submission of the plaintiff that, upon proper construction of s 5I, the interpretation of s 5I(2) in relation to Commonwealth offences should not be read as limited by the operation of s 5I(3). As noted, that provision is intended to give an extended meaning to the expression serving a sentence of imprisonment. It does not purport to be a complete statement of what circumstances would constitute that expression or the wider expression 'supervision while serving a sentence of imprisonment' for the purposes of s 5I(2). This conclusion also follows when regard is had to the broader context of the Act. Section 5(2) of that Act expressly applies to offences against the laws of the Commonwealth and there are aspects of the sentencing regime enacted by the Commonwealth Parliament which would fall within the meaning of 'serving a sentence of imprisonment' without regard to s 5I(3)."
13. In State of New South Wales v NW [2019] NSWSC 415, which concerned a preliminary hearing of an application for an ESO pursuant to the Act, Harrison J considered whether the application was brought within the relevant time pursuant to s 6(1) of the Act, which is in the following terms: "6 Requirements with respect to application (1) An application for an extended supervision order against an offender may not be made until the last 9 months of the offender's current custody or supervision."
14. At the time of filing of the summons, the defendant was serving the recognizance release order part of a sentence of imprisonment imposed for a Commonwealth offence. The term of the recognizance release order exceeded the balance of the sentence of imprisonment. The sentencing judge had expressed the sentence to be "a term of imprisonment of 2 years and 3 months". Her Honour directed that the defendant "be released at the expiration of 15 months of [the] sentence on 8 May 2018 upon … entering a recognizance release order for a period of 18 months in the sum of $500". Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment would expire six months before the expiration of the recognizance release order, which Harrison J, at [19], accepted to be a permissible sentencing option.
15. The application was filed within nine months of the expiration of what Harrison J termed "the head sentence" of 2 years 3 months, but not within nine months of the expiration of the recognizance release order. Accordingly, there was a question as to whether the period of nine months referred to in s 6(1) of the Act was to be measured by reference to the expiration of the head sentence or of the recognizance release order.
16. The defendant in that case submitted that, adopting the analysis of Walton J in State of New South Wales v TT, at the relevant time he was serving a sentence of imprisonment for the Commonwealth offence and therefore the application was premature pursuant to s 6(1) of the Act. The plaintiff submitted that at the time of the application, in conformity with s 5I(2)(a)(ii) of the Act, the defendant was "in custody or supervision … while serving a sentence of imprisonment", for "an offence of a sexual nature" and that the "sentence of imprisonment" ceased six months before the expiration of the recognizance release order.
17. Harrison J noted that the plaintiff's argument: "… proceeds upon the basis that it is the head sentence that determines whether the defendant was under supervision while serving a sentence of imprisonment. Any period of supervision, so called, outside or beyond the expiration of the head sentence is not supervision while serving a sentence of imprisonment."
18. The plaintiff submitted that once the head sentence expired, the defendant was no longer serving a "sentence of imprisonment" and therefore was not a "supervised offender" as defined at s 5I of the Act. Harrison J accepted this analysis.
19. In the instant case, the defendant submits that it is clear from both State of New South Wales v TT and State of New South Wales v NW that any recognizance release order made in respect of a sentence of imprisonment pursuant to s 20(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1914 is a part of that sentence of imprisonment up to the date of the expiration of "the head sentence", to adopt Harrison J's terminology. Therefore, it follows that the application does not comply with s 13B(5) of the Act, because the "total sentence", that is, the 3 years from the commencement date of the sentence of imprisonment, does not expire until a period of about 12 months after the summons was filed.
20. The plaintiff acknowledges that its proposed meaning of "sentence of imprisonment" is different from what it was found to be in State of New South Wales v TT and State of New South Wales v NW, but seeks to distinguish those cases by pointing to textual differences between s 13B and s 5I that, it submits, warrant a different interpretation of the phrase. Section 13B(2), which concerns a "detained offender", is predicated on the offender being in one of the four forms of custody enumerated at s 13B(2)(a) at the time of the application, the last of which (subs (2)(a)(iv)) involves a sentence which is being served "concurrently or consecutively, or partly concurrently and partly consecutively, with one or more sentences of imprisonment … referred to in subparagraph (i), (ii) or (iii)". The term "total sentence", therefore, in subs (3)(a), is necessary because of the combined sentences referred to in subs (2)(a)(iv).
21. Another textual difference advanced by the plaintiff is that, in s 5I, there is not a similar focus on the offender being in custody at the time of the application. Rather, s 5I(2) has a more expansive definition of "supervised offender" than that which appears in s 13B(4) of the Act. As well, s 5I(3), which has no equivalent provision in s 13B, provides textual support for the determinations in State of New South Wales v TT and State of New South Wales v NW that the expression "sentence of imprisonment" includes the part of a sentence that is served in the community.
22. The plaintiff submits that in s 16F of the Crimes Act 1914, the differences in the explanations to be given to offenders by a sentencing court when they receive a non-parole period are consistent with a legislative intention that a recognizance release order is not equated with a period of imprisonment. Section 16F(1)(a) requires an explanation: "… that service of the sentence will entail a period of imprisonment of not less than the non-parole period and, if a parole order is made, a period of service in the community, called the parole period, to complete service of the sentence."
23. Section 16F(2)(a) requires an explanation: "… that service of the sentence will entail a period of imprisonment equal to the pre-release period (if any) specified in the order and a period of service in the community equal to the balance of the sentence."
24. The plaintiff submits that, adopting a purposive approach to the Act, the interpretation of "total sentence" that is propounded by the defendant would thwart the apparent legislative intention, since an offender who was about to be released on a recognizance release order for a period of nine months or more could not be the subject of an application for a CDO. Once so released, they could not be the subject of an application for a CDO unless they qualified as a "supervised offender" and then not until within nine months of the expiration of the total sentence, pursuant to s 13B(5). The plaintiff submits that this interpretation would constitute "a significant gap in the operation of the Act".

The history of the relevant legislative provisions

1. The term "total sentence" appears twice in the Act, in ss 13B(3) and (5). It was introduced into an earlier form of the Act, being the Crimes (Serious Sex Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), by the Crimes (Serious Sex Offenders) Amendment Act 2010 (NSW). However, it is appropriate to consider the meaning of the term in the context of the purpose of that legislation since it was originally enacted in 2006.
2. In the second reading speech for the Crimes (Serious Sex Offenders) Bill 2006, the Minister for Police, the Hon Carl Scully, explained the need for the legislation as follows: "One particular concern that is dealt with by this scheme relates to a handful of high-risk, hard-core offenders who have not made any attempt to rehabilitate whilst in prison. These offenders make up a very small percentage of the prison population, yet their behaviour poses a very real threat to the public. These concerns are compounded where the offender never qualifies for parole and is released at the end of their sentence totally unsupervised. The bill addresses this problem by allowing this small group of high-risk offenders to be placed on extended supervision, or, in only the very worst cases, kept in custody." (New South Wales Legislative Assembly, Parliamentary Debates (Hansard), 29 March 2006 at 21730)
3. It is apparent that the legislative intention when the Act was first passed was that a CDO would be available as an option only if, by the time that the head sentence had expired, the offender had not qualified for parole and therefore would be released back into the community, and without supervision. The relevant provision of the Crimes (Serious Sex Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) at the time was as follows: "14 Application for continuing detention order (1) The Attorney General may apply to the Supreme Court for a continuing detention order against a sex offender who, when the application is made, is in custody in a correctional centre: (a) while serving a sentence of imprisonment by way of full-time detention: (i) for a serious sex offence, or (ii) for an offence of a sexual nature, or (b) pursuant to an existing continuing detention order, referred to in this Part as his or her current custody. (2) An application may not be made until the last 6 months of the offender's current custody."
4. In the original Act, the definitions of "serious sex offence" and an "offence of a sexual nature" did not include Commonwealth offences; it only applied to state offences.
5. In 2009, the New South Wales Sentencing Council published a report examining the operation of the Crimes (Serious Sex Offenders) Act 2006, and made recommendations for its amendment: New South Wales, Sentencing Council, Penalties Relating to Sexual Assault Offences in New South Wales (Volume 3, May 2009) ("the Report"). One of the concerns the Report identified was that it was unclear when the six month period in s 14(2), and in s 6(2), which was the counterpart provision for ESOs, commenced. The Report recommended that the Act be amended to make clear that it referred to a period of six months from the expiration of the "total sentence". It hypothesised that the rationale for not permitting an intervention before that time, was that other legislative schemes ensured that the community was not endangered by an offender who had been conditionally released before the expiration of the total sentence. The Report stated: "Application brought within the last six months of custody or supervision 9.20 The issue of the actual date from which the six-month period commences needs to be clarified in the legislation. Section 6(2) of the NSW Act provides that an application for an ESO can not be made until the last six month's [sic] of the offender's current custody or supervision and s 14(2) provides that an application for a CDO cannot be made under until the final six months of the offender's current custody. 'Current custody' refers to the offender serving a sentence of imprisonment. 9.21 It seems clear that the intention of the NSW Act was to make provision for supervision or detention of a serious sex offender to ensure the safety of the community in circumstances when there were no other lawful means of detaining the offender in custody or supervising the offender in the community. In other words, the Act was to take effect once the offender's sentence had expired. 9.22 It seems clear therefore that the final six months of the offender's current custody or supervision refers to the final six months of the offender's total sentence after which time there would be no further restriction on the offender's liberty if an application under the Act was not made. 9.23 Therefore if a serious sex offender is in the final six months of his or her non-parole period this cannot be said to be the final six months of his or her current custody. The offender still has a period (and sometimes a considerable period) of his or her sentence to serve which may be in custody or, if released on parole, would be under supervision in the community. The Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 (NSW) (the CAS Act) makes adequate provision for the protection of the community such that there is no work for the NSW Act to do. The State Parole Authority (SPA) may not release an offender unless it is in the public interest to do so. If the SPA forms an intention to grant parole the CAS Act provides that the Commissioner or the State may make a submission opposing release which the SPA is bound to take into account. If the SPA nevertheless decides that it is in the public interest to release the offender on parole, the offender is then serving the remainder of his or her sentence under supervision. If the offender does not comply with the conditions of his or her parole order then the offender's parole will be revoked and he or she will return to custody to continue serving his or her sentence in a correctional centre. 9.24 If a serious sex offender is serving a sentence of less than three years then his or her release at the expiration of the non-parole period is more certain but the final six months of the non-parole period can still not be said to be the final six months of his or her current custody. The offender's parole may be revoked prior to release on the application of the Commissioner and it will be revoked if the offender is untreated and is deemed to be a risk to the community. If the offender is released on parole then again he or she is serving his or her sentence under supervision and if the offender fails to comply with his or her parole order he or she will be returned to custody to complete his or her sentence in detention. 9.25 While there are some sentences which do not require supervision of the offender following his or her release on a court-based parole order, it is inconceivable that the type of offender who would attract the interest of the NSW Act would be serving such a sentence. 9.26 There is no need for the provision of the NSW Act to be enlivened when the CAS Act provides adequate protection for the community. The NSW Act is enlivened only when the CAS Act has finished its work and the offender would otherwise have no restrictions. 9.27 As the NSW Act is unclear as to what constitutes the final six months of the current custody of supervision it should be amended to make it clear that it refers to the final six months of the head or total sentence."
6. The New South Wales government accepted the Report's recommendation, as was evidenced in an amendment to s 14 which was introduced by the Crimes (Serious Sex Offenders) Amendment Act 2010 (NSW): "14 Application for continuing detention order (1) The State of New South Wales may apply to the Supreme Court for a continuing detention order against a sex offender who, when the application is made, is in custody in a correctional centre: (a) while serving a sentence of imprisonment by way of full-time detention: (i) for a serious sex offence, or (ii) for an offence of a sexual nature, or (iii) for another offence which is being served concurrently or consecutively, or partly concurrently and partly consecutively, with one or more sentences of imprisonment referred to in subparagraph (i) or (ii), or (b) pursuant to an existing continuing detention order, referred to in this Part as his or her current custody. (2) The State of New South Wales may apply to the Supreme Court for a continuing detention order against a person who is subject to an extended supervision order or an interim supervision order if: (a) the person is found guilty of an offence under section 12, or (b) because of altered circumstances, adequate supervision of the person cannot be provided under an extended supervision order or an interim supervision order. (2A) An application under subsection (1) may not be made more than 6 months before: (a) the end of the offender's total sentence, or (b) the expiry of the existing continuing detention order, as appropriate. (2B) An application under subsection (2) in respect of a person who is serving a sentence of imprisonment by way of full-time detention may not be made more than 6 months before the end of the person's total sentence."
7. In the second reading speech for that amending Act, the Attorney General of New South Wales, the Hon John Hatzistergos, acknowledged the government's acceptance of the Sentencing Council's recommendation and explained: "… the phrase 'last six months of the of the offender's current custody', which is currently found in subsection (2), is replaced in the new subsection (2A) by the following: an 'application may not be made more than six months before the end of the offender's total sentence or the expiry of the existing continuing detention order'. This amendment clarifies that the phrase 'last six months of the offender's current custody or supervision' refers to the final six months of the offender's head or total sentence, as was recommended by the Sentencing Council and confirmed in the statutory review. The new subsection (2B) allows an application under section (2) to be made at any time, that is, whether the offender is in custody or not. However, if the offender is serving a sentence of imprisonment by way of full-time detention, then an application may not be made more than six months before the end of the person's total sentence." (New South Wales Legislative Council, Parliamentary Debates (Hansard), 24 November 2010 at 28045)
8. In 2013, the Crimes (Serious Sex Offenders) Act 2006 was amended and renamed as the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006, which is the current name of the Act. The amendments expanded the legislative scheme to allow for the continued detention and extended supervision of high risk violent offenders. Section 14(2A) was essentially retained in the same form, at s 13B(3) in relation to high risk sex offenders, and at s 13C(3) in relation to high risk violent offenders.
9. In 2017, the scheme was again expanded by the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Amendment Act 2017 (NSW), to introduce relevant Commonwealth offences into the definitions of "serious sex offence" and an "offence of a sexual nature". In addition, ss 5I and 13B were introduced in their current form, thus merging the temporal provision concerning the filing of the application of a CDO for both types of high risk offenders into s 13B(3) of the Act.
10. The first proposition in the plaintiff's argument that the term "total sentence" refers only to the custodial element of a sentence, is that it "picks up" the expression "sentence of imprisonment" in ss 13B(2) and (5), in particular, that the term is a convenient means of referring to the custodial element of the ultimate sentence fashioned through the meshing of concurrent or consecutive, or partly concurrent and partly consecutive, sentences when one or more of them is a sentence of the type identified in ss 13B(2)(a)(i)-(iii).
11. The interpretation of "sentence of imprisonment" which is advanced by the plaintiff, meaning only the custodial part of the sentence, would entail two quite different meanings being attributed to the same expression in different parts of the Act, since its meaning in the context of s 5I refers to the whole sentence and therefore includes any part of that sentence that is served in the community, as highlighted by State of New South Wales v TT and State of New South Wales v NW.
12. In D151 and Others v New South Wales Crime Commission (2017) 94 NSWLR 738; [2017] NSWCA 143 at [72], Simpson JA (Beazley ACJ agreeing), said: "It is a general (though readily rebuttable) rule of statutory construction that, where a word is used consistently in a single piece of legislation, it should be given a consistent meaning unless there is reason to do otherwise: Registrar of Titles of the State of Western Australia v Franzon (1975) 132 CLR 611 at 618; [1975] HCA 41."
13. The words in question should be construed consistently with the language and terms of the statute, and by reference to the language of the instrument viewed as a whole: Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355; [1998] HCA 28 at [69] (McHugh, Gummow, Kirby and Hayne JJ).
14. The question then, is whether the textual and purposive interpretations advanced by the plaintiff as to the meaning of "sentence of imprisonment" in s 13B of the Act provide a sufficient reason to depart from the meaning of the same expression as it has been found previously, and accepted by the plaintiff to be, in s 5I of the Act. This must be viewed against the backdrop of the Act viewed as a whole.
15. I note that the plaintiff's argument, that the term "total sentence" means only the part of the sentence served in custody, is at odds with the everyday meaning of the word "total", which is defined in the Macquarie Dictionary to mean "constituting or comprising the whole; entire; whole" and in the Australian Oxford Dictionary to mean "complete, comprising the whole". The term "total sentence" appears in the Terrorism (High Risk Offenders) Act 2017 (NSW) at ss 37(2) and (3), in a similar context to its use in the Act. It does not appear in current New South Wales legislation relating to appeals or sentencing (other than the Drug Court Act 1998 (NSW) at s 5A(1)(b)(ii)), or in Commonwealth sentencing legislation. However, as a matter of judicial notice, I take into account that the use of the term "total sentence" in New South Wales sentencing procedure is commonplace; it is understood and applied in criminal courts as meaning the whole of a sentence, being the sum of the non-parole period and the balance of the term.
16. The extrinsic material of the second reading speeches and the Report containing the recommendation of the New South Wales Sentencing Council, as acknowledged in the Attorney General's second reading speech, confirms the ordinary meaning of the term "total sentence" and the purpose of the legislation: ss 33 and 34 of the Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW). As is apparent from the historical overview, the term "total sentence" was introduced in 2010 to clarify that the time within which the application must be filed is to be measured back from the date that the whole sentence expires, thus underscoring the proposition that an application for a CDO cannot be filed more than nine months from the date of expiration of the whole sentence of imprisonment, including any component served as conditional liberty in the community.
17. The plaintiff's purposive approach to the interpretation of the words "total sentence", and "sentence of imprisonment" overlooks the similarities between conditional liberty pursuant to a recognizance release order for a Commonwealth offence, and parole for a state or Commonwealth offence. When an offender is released to parole, the community is protected by the supervision of parole and the state's authority to exercise powers to remedy breaches of conditions of parole, including the power to return the offender to custody to serve the balance of parole. Release subject to a recognizance release order for a Commonwealth offence protects the community in a similar fashion. If an offender breaches a recognizance release order, the options before the court dealing with the breach include returning the offender to prison to serve "that part of each sentence of imprisonment fixed under paragraph 20(1)(b) that the person had not served at the time of his or her release": s 20A(5)(c)(i) of the Crimes Act 1914.
18. As noted earlier, the legislative scheme is intended to supplement, rather than override, existing safeguards and mechanisms, in order to avoid the situation of an offender who had failed to qualify for parole by the time that the head sentence was to expire being released at all or without supervision, if they pose an immediate and significant threat to the safety of the community. Under the legislative scheme, a CDO or ESO could then be considered.

Conclusion

1. For these reasons, I am of the opinion that the term "total sentence", as it appears in ss 13B(3) and (5) of the Act, means the whole of the sentence of imprisonment, including any part of that sentence which is served in the community, such as a period of parole pursuant to s 44(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), or release subject to a recognizance release order made pursuant to s 20(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1914.
2. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that the defendant is a "supervised offender" as defined in s 13B(4)(b) of the Act, but that the application was not brought within nine months before the end of the defendant's total sentence, and therefore the application does not comply with s 13B(5) of the Act.
3. It is accepted by the plaintiff that the Court should not make orders at a preliminary hearing unless satisfied that the matters in the State's supporting documentation would, if proved, establish the threshold requirements. Clearly my interpretation of the disputed term has the effect of the plaintiff failing to establish a threshold requirement. The application is premature, since it could not be lodged until 27 July 2020, being nine months prior to the expiration of the total sentence of 3 years' imprisonment that commenced on 28 April 2018 and will expire on 27 April 2021.
4. At the hearing of this matter, at which point the application for an IDO was not opposed and it was not contemplated by either party that the matter would not proceed to a final hearing, material tendered by the plaintiff was relied upon by the defendant to found a submission that the defendant was willing to partake in therapy whilst in custody that would reduce his risk of recidivism, thereby benefiting him and the community. The evidence was also to the effect that he did not come within the guidelines to be admitted into those programs. Having read the relevant reports, it appears to me that there is merit in that submission, and accordingly, mindful that relevant decisions concerning the use of such resources properly rests with the NSW Department of Corrective Services, I nonetheless respectfully recommend that the relevant authorities give consideration to facilitating the defendant's admission to such programs, as soon as is reasonably possible.
5. Finally, although the application is to be dismissed, I am of the view that access to the file should be restricted, for the same reasons that would apply if the application had progressed to a final hearing.

Orders

1. I make orders as follows: 1. Set aside the orders made in respect of this matter on 7 May 2020. 2. Dismiss the summons filed by the plaintiff on 8 April 2020. 3. The plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs. 4. Recommend that Corrective Services NSW facilitate and expedite the defendant's commencement of therapeutic programs (such as RUSH and/or CUBIT) whilst he is in custody. 5. Access to the Supreme Court's file in respect of any document shall not be granted to a non-party without the leave of a Judge of the Court, and, if any application for access is made by a non-party in respect of any document, the parties are to be notified by the Registrar so as to allow them an opportunity to be heard in relation to the application for access.

Amendments 06 November 2020 - Minor typographical errors amended 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: 06 November 2020