State of New South Wales v Wilde

(a) Offending and custodial history 15The defendant has been convicted of sexual offences occurring in 1981, 1983 and 1991. These offences have all involved the defendant forcing women to submit to sexual intercourse at knifepoint. 16The defendant was arrested and charged on 26 March 1981 in relation to the first of what is a series of sexual offences, and that offence occurred on 23 March 1980. At the time of arrest the defendant was 19 years old and subject to a four-year good behaviour bond for break, enter and steal. 17In respect of that first offence, the defendant pleaded guilty to one count of rape and one count of common assault. He was sentenced by Nagle J on 18 November 1981 to five years imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years. 18As a result of escaping from custody whilst in prison, the defendant was not released on parole until 22 June 1983. 19In the months following his release the defendant was acquitted of a charge relating to indecent assault and breaking, entering and stealing. The defendant was, however, found guilty of an offence relating to larceny of a motor vehicle. 20On 2 October 1983, that is, only four months after his release, the defendant was charged in relation to incidents relating to two different females alleged to have occurred in September 1983. The defendant was found guilty of the charges relating to the second female, which included threatening to inflict actual bodily harm with intent to have sexual intercourse. 21In relation to this offence and an additional charge of motor vehicle theft, Mathews DCJ (as her Honour then was) sentenced the defendant to a period of 10 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 6 years. 22Mathews DCJ referred to the circumstances of the offence as being "appalling to say the least", and considered the treatment of the victim to be "with the greatest of degradation and depravity". 23The defendant unsuccessfully appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeal. 24He was released on parole on 24 October 1991. 25On 7 November 1991 the defendant was charged with offences relating to break and enter, aggravated indecent assault, and malicious wounding. 26Ducker DCJ found the offences to be "premeditated, and utterly despicable", and considered that the defendant "took advantage of a lone woman in what should have been the safety of her own home to inflict upon her the most degrading humiliating physically painful and distressing non-consensual acts". His Honour also remarked upon the defendant not showing the slightest sign of remorse or contrition, and of his attitude throughout being one of "truculent self-concern" and "total indifference to the suffering of his victim". 27In addition, Ducker DCJ remarked that the defendant "exudes a sense of latent, only barely concealed violence, which does not bode well for his future, nor that of the community when he is released", and further, that: "the present offences were premeditated, cold blooded, humiliating, and terrifying to the victim. And the prisoner emerged, by his commission of these acts, as a dangerous sexual predator who, so long as he was at large within the community, represented a considerable threat to women" 28Ducker DCJ further observed: "The use of knives to intimidate; the apparent need to degrade and humiliate the victims; the choice of victims of lone women in their own homes; the tying up of their hands; the subjecting of his victims to bizarre behaviour (one woman being required to 'bark like a dog' and another being required 'to groan and pretend that she enjoyed it'); the cuts inflicted on the victims; and the resort to bizarre attempts to excuse his conduct by using a similar story, in order to try, perhaps to persuade the victim not to complain, or to otherwise assuage the indignation and desire for retribution of the victim". 29The defendant was found guilty of these offences, and was sentenced by Ducker DCJ on 11 June 1993 to a period of 16 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 12 years. During sentencing, Ducker DCJ commented that, "there would need to be an extraordinary change...before he would represent other than a considerable risk if released into the community". 30The defendant was released from custody on 12 September 2008. 31Since this time the defendant has not been charged with any offences. The defendant has, however, since then been subject to various detention and supervision orders, which are detailed below. 32The defendant is presently 52 years of age. Since the age of 19, the defendant has effectively been in the community for a period of only three years.

(b) Detention and supervision orders 33Following the defendant's release on 12 September 2008 a number of applications were made by the State for continuing detention under the Act. A number of interim orders were made on 1 November 2007, 30 November 2007, 20 December 2007, and 17 January 2008. 34These culminated in a Continuing Detention Order for a period of eight months being made by this Court (Price J) on 24 January 2008: Attorney General for the State of New South Wales v Wilde [2008] NSWSC 14. In his sentencing remarks, his Honour stated that he was satisfied to a high degree of probability that the defendant would be likely to commit a further serious sex offence if not kept under supervision, and further, that adequate supervision could not be provided under an extended supervision order. 35On 16 September 2008, this Court (McClellan CJ at CL) ordered that the defendant be further detained on an interim basis for a period of 28 days from 22 September 2008: State of New South Wales v Wilde [2008] NSWSC 1148. 36On 12 December 2008, Kirby J ordered that the defendant be subject to an ESO for a period of three years. The specific conditions attached to this ESO are included as a schedule to his Honour's judgment: State of NSW v Wilde [2008] NSWSC 1211. 37This ESO was due to expire on 11 December 2011, however due to a series of breaches of the conditions by the defendant (to be outlined below), the ESO effectively expired on 10 January 2014. 38On 8 January 2008 her Honour Fullerton J ordered an interim supervision order, commencing on 10 January 2014. 39This order was subsequently renewed by her Honour on 4 February 2014, and subsequently renewed by Hidden J on 3 March 2014. 40The present interim supervision order is due to expire at midnight on 2 April 2014.

(c) Compliance with detention and supervision orders 41Mr Patrick Sheehan, in a Risk Assessment Report prepared for Corrective Services on 14 November 2013, details extensively the extent to which the defendant has complied with and/or breached various conditions of the ESO. I do not propose to address all of these in this judgment, particularly having regard to constraints as to time for the making of orders in the present application and for delivery of this judgment. 42However I note, in particular, the following breaches: (1)On 18 March 2009 the defendant was allegedly in possession of a knife while residing at the Nunyara Community Offender Support Program ("COSP") inside Long Bay Complex. The defendant argued that he was in possession of the knife in order to cut fruit and meat. (2)On 16 October 2009 the defendant verbally abused and used threatening language to staff at the COSP, in breach of a condition of the ESO. The defendant was subsequently sentenced to a period of six months imprisonment. (3)On 1 May 2010 the defendant was convicted of failing to comply with a condition of the ESO by attempting to contact a WIRES staff member via Facebook, and sentenced to a period of nine months imprisonment. (4)On 15 November 2011 the defendant attended the private residence of a female and allegedly requested to be allowed into the house. This was considered to be a deviation from his weekly schedule, and the defendant was subsequently arrested. The defendant entered a plea of guilty and was sentenced to a period of imprisonment for a period of 12 months with a non-parole period of nine months. 43In the defendant's written submissions a number of explanatory or mitigating factors were relied upon as follows: (1)There is no suggestion the defendant has been violent on any occasion since being placed on an ESO. (2)Many of the breaches were "technical" in nature. (3)When examined in their proper context the breaches do not necessarily point towards a risk of the defendant committing serious sex offences. (4)In respect of the first breach, there is no suggestion it was anything more than mere possession of a knife. (5)In respect of the second breach, it is open to infer that such threats were manifestations of angry bluster. (6)In respect of the third breach, there is nothing in the facts to suggest the Facebook friend request was attended by threats or harassment. (7)In respect of the fourth breach, the defendant submits this was a technical breach, and that it appears the Magistrate accepted it was not attended by any sinister intent and did not possess a criminal quality.

Psychiatric Examinations 44On 8 January 2014 her Honour Fullerton J ordered that Professor David Greenberg and Dr Anthony Samuels be appointed to conduct separate psychiatric examinations of the defendant and furnish reports on the results of those examinations, pursuant to s 7(4) of the Act. Her Honour also ordered that the defendant attend the said psychiatric appointments. 45The Court must have regard to these reports, and the offender's level of participation in any such examination, in determining whether or not to make an ESO: s 9(3)(b).

(a) Report of Professor David Greenberg 46Professor Greenberg provided a report dated 2 March 2014, which has been marked as Exhibit "B" in the proceedings. 47This report follows Professor Greenberg's examinations of the defendant on 5 and 14 February 2014, in which Professor Greenberg observed the defendant to be "cooperative and polite". However, it was also noted that: "With regard to his second and third convictions, he maintained that he was innocent and refused to discuss aspects of these offences. He also refused to participate in any discussion into his insights into his sexual offending behaviour. He refused to discuss aspects of his family, sexual and some details of his personal history": Ex B at pp 14-15. 48Professor Greenberg expressed the opinion that the defendant does not have any evidence of any major psychiatric illness such as a psychotic disorder, major mood disorder, or anxiety disorder. Further, that he was unable to diagnose the defendant with sexually deviant (paraphilic) disorder due to the defendant's unwillingness to discuss his prior convictions: Ex B at p 15. 49Professor Greenberg, however, was able to reach a primary diagnosis of "severe entrenched Chronic Personality Disorder with antisocial and narcissistic features" at the "upper range of severity". This disorder, he said, is "chronic, stable and difficult to change": Ex B at p 25. Persons with such a disorder, Professor Greenberg observes, have: "...inflexible patterns of behaviour and have difficulty acknowledging their problems arise within their own personality. They often view the world and everything external to themselves as the cause of their problems rather than owning that the root of their problems lies within themselves": Ex B at p 15. 50With regard to whether the defendant poses a risk of committing further serious sex offences, Professor Greenberg noted that the defendant scored an "8" on the STATIC 99-R assessment scale, which falls within the "high risk category": Ex B at p 18. Professor Greenberg also noted that only 1.5% of all sex offenders would have the same or higher score than the defendant on this scale. Accordingly, he said: "Mr Wilde's risk of "high risk category risk" category is relative to other sex offenders. However his risk of sexual reoffence relative to the general male population without sexual charges or convictions should be regarded as 'higher'": Ex B at p 19. 51Professor Greenberg also assessed the defendant on the Sexual Violence Risk-20 instrument. As a result of this assessment Professor Greenberg considered the defendant's "dynamic risk factors" and concluded that the ultimate issue of whether the defendant will re-offend cannot be stated with any scientific degree of certainty. However, Professor Greenberg noted at page 23 of his report: (1)The defendant's significant static and dynamic risk factors heighten his risk of sexually re-offending. (2)The defendant's current risk for likelihood of committing a further sexual offence would be in the "high risk" category range over the long term. (3)This risk of sexual re-offending is in the high end of risk category relative to other sex offenders. (4)Relative to the general male population, the defendant's risk must be considered much higher in view of the fact that he already has a pattern of convictions for serious sexual offences. 52In respect of the conditions proposed by the State, Professor Greenberg considered these to be "clearly markedly onerous". Further, that: "There have been some minor gains which should be regarded as significant for Mr Wilde with regard to living arrangements, pro-social activities and engagement with psychological services. His Risk Management Plan which is reviewed on a six-monthly basis must provide Mr Wilde with incremental incentives to adopt pro-social behaviour and shift external controls to him adopting more internal controls on his antisocial attitudes, thoughts and behaviours. In my opinion, these conditions are more likely than not to assist a non-recidivistic reintegration into the community": Ex B at p 25 (emphasis in original). 53Accordingly, Professor Greenberg reached the conclusion that the "ESO conditions should allow flexibility for staff professional judgment and for Mr Wilde to be rewarded for adopting positive pro-social goals". Further, that "a period of several years would be justified and in keeping with this diagnosis": Ex B at p 25.

(b) Report of Dr Anthony Samuels 54Dr Samuels provided a report dated 21 February 2014, which has been marked as Exhibit "A" in the proceedings. 55It should be noted that when the defendant attended on Dr Samuels on 31 January 2014 he presented as "hostile" and "his manner was intimidating and threatening": Ex A at p 19. 56During this appointment the defendant "flatly refused to sign a consent form to participate in the assessment process". Dr Samuels therefore was limited to a "very brief encounter", and was unable to conduct a full interview or examination of the defendant. Accordingly, his report is based on his limited observations and the materials that were provided to him. 57Following a review of the material, Dr Samuels expressed the opinion on page 19 of his report that: (1)There is no evidence the defendant suffers from an affective or psychiatric illness or that he is intellectually disabled; (2)There is evidence of sexual sadism and the significance or purpose of the dildos in his possession is unclear; (3)The presence of a paraphilic disorder cannot be confidently diagnosed or excluded without the opportunity of discussing his sexual offending behaviour; (4)He clearly has antisocial and possibly narcissistic personality features and is likely to score in the range that suggests features of psychopathy. 58Dr Samuels found that "there is a likelihood that he could commit a further serious sex offence", based upon static risk factors and dynamic risk factors, and that this risk is "moderate to high": Ex A at pp 19-20. In respect of this, Dr Samuels observed: "Of greatest concern to me is the fact that even whilst on supervision orders he has continually challenged authority, attempted to evade monitoring, has been caught with a knife and dildos, changed his name, has used aliases to set up computer accounts, and has attempted to enter the home of a female. He has also never fully participated in sex offender treatment and refuses anti-libidinal medication": Ex A at p 20. 59Dr Samuels also expressed the opinion that the defendant's personality factors underpin a lot of his physically aggressive and sexualised behaviours, and was of the view that these behaviours are entrenched, and that "these drives are persistent": Ex A at p 20. 60Accordingly, Dr Samuels concluded that: "I think it is likely that he will pose a risk of both physical and sexual aggression towards others for the foreseeable future unless physical illness, acquired disability, age related factors or other events and circumstances alter his risk profile": Ex A at p 20. 61Dr Samuels agreed with the State that a "5 year order would seem appropriate at this time": Ex A at p 21. 62However, in respect of the conditions sought, Dr Samuels noted these "would appear to be appropriate but his history, recent behaviours, attitude and demeanour suggest that ensuring his compliance will be challenging".

Additional Reports 63Other reports have also been prepared and were tendered in these proceedings. I do not propose to reproduce in detail the content of these lengthy reports, other than to record their primary observations and conclusions.

(a) Risk Assessment Report 64On 14 November 2013, Mr Patrick Sheehan (Senior Forensic Psychologist) and Ms Danielle Maestro (Director, Sex and Violent Offender Program) prepared a Risk Assessment Report. 65This report noted that: "Mr Wilde has proven a difficult person to manage throughout his ESO. He has for the best part remained resistant and hostile to the supervision process, with little insight into his effect on other people or why supervisors might be concerned by his behaviour": p 13. 66The report did state, however, that "there may be sufficient scope to suggest that supervision has been impactful in reducing Mr Wilde's risk", having regard to the fact that the defendant has not sexually re-offended whilst the present supervision order has been in force. The report also highlighted the various programs the defendant participated in whilst in custody. 67Having regard to the defendant's static and dynamic risk factors, the report concluded the defendant's overall risk as falling within the high risk category with regard to actuarial factors. 68In particular, the report stated: "Like most offenders, Mr Wilde's history does not suggest that he would sexually act out on every opportunity. Were he unequivocally committed to undertaking another sexual offence, he could have done so during his current supervision order. There are likely to be instances where Mr Wilde shows better judgement, does not experience sufficient sexual arousal, or his offence cycle is interrupted by some external factor. The future risk is chronic in nature in that over time as he was exposed to these risk factors without intervention or interruption, there would be less impediments to a sexual offence": p 29 (emphasis added). 69The report additionally recorded Mr Sheehan's opinion: "In my opinion, the overall totality of evidence suggests that Mr Wilde remains in the high risk category of sexual offending relative to other adult male sexual offenders. There has been no identifiable resolution of the factors associate with previous episodes of offending. He is at most escalated risk of engaging in offences related to threatening adult women in their own homes and threatening them with knives, which might meet the technical threshold of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006": p 29. 70The determination of relative risk was decided as a result of the defendant having more elements of risk and less protective factors than other male sexual offenders: p 30. 71In respect of the likely consequences of a further supervision order not being made, the report observed: "It may be that Mr Wilde could independently remain offence free, however, the available evidence suggests to me that his social judgment and decision making continues to be impaired, and in combination with violent/angry thoughts, Mr Wilde remains vulnerable to placing himself in high risk situations": p 30.

(b) Risk Management Report 72A Risk Management Report was prepared in December 2013 by Kylie Smith (Community Corrections Officer, Extended Supervision Team, Campbelltown Community Corrections), Julie Bates (Unit Leader, Extended Supervision Team, Campbelltown Community Corrections) and Ziggy Abedine (Manager, Extended Supervision Team). 73The report detailed the defendant's criminal history, response to supervision, and his breaches of the extended supervision order. The report also observed that the defendant has been resistant to the conditions of his current supervision order, has limited social skills, and has "required intense supervision and a great deal of patience and one to one intervention": p 10. 74The report noted the conclusions in the Risk Assessment Report that the defendant falls within the high risk category for sexual re-offending. The report formulates a risk management plan which focuses on removing opportunities for further offending through intensive monitoring of the defendant and situations that may lead to offending behaviour, so as to practicably manage the defendant in the community. 75This plan suggested: (1)Reporting obligations; (2)Unannounced and random visits, in addition to regular weekly home visits; (3)Electronic monitoring in conjunction with the provision of a schedule of movements; (4)Residing only at accommodation approved by the defendant's nominated departmental supervising officer; (5)Imposition of a curfew; (6)Monitoring of all interactions with the community; (7)Abstinence from illicit substances and alcohol; (8)Restriction on defendant's access to weapons; (9)Participation in monthly one-on-one counselling sessions with the therapeutic manager of Forensic Pathology Services. 76The report observed that electronic monitoring and the implementation of a curfew "are considered vital tools in the management of Mr Wilde as he would be required to account for movements which would assist in providing him with a structured lifestyle": p 9. 77The report also proposed that these conditions be reviewed every six months to determine the necessary degree of supervision and monitoring. 78In summary, the report concluded that: "Given Mr Wilde's history of violent sexual re-offending against adult females, his likelihood of re-offending has been assessed to be in the high risk category. Mr Wilde presents with a history of non compliance and resistance in regard to community supervision and treatment which, when coupled with only a short period of independent living within the community since August 2013 raises serious concerns as to his ability to lead a law abiding lifestyle were he to remain in the community unsupervised": p 9.

(c) Report of Jenny Howell 79Jenny Howell, registered psychologist, prepared a report on 29 June 2012. This report was originally requested by the defendant's solicitors in relation to the defendant's suitability and willingness to engage in counselling to address his risk of sexual recidivism should he be released into the community. 80In this report Ms Howell observed: (1)Restrictions placed on the defendant pursuant to the extended supervision order have significantly isolated him from society outside of departmental staff. (2)The defendant has great difficulty forming working relationships with staff employed by the Department of Corrective Services. (3)The defendant has experienced feelings of extreme frustration with the Department of Corrective Services in their management of his extended supervision order. (4)The defendant has attended 59 counselling sessions while under the extended supervision order. (5)The defendant has engaged in counselling in a way that is consistent with his beliefs regarding the value of counselling. (6)The defendant has been respectful and engaged in difficult discussions of offending issues. (7)The defendant continues to deny responsibility for the second and third offences, and maintains they were consensual. (8)The defendant has not attracted new allegations, charges or convictions for sexual assault offences while under the extended supervision order.

(d) Notes of Katherine Sahm 81The defendant commenced seeing Ms Katherine Sahm, therapeutic manager of Forensic Psychology Services on 23 January 2013, and he agreed to attend monthly sessions with Ms Sahm on the condition that his support people are present. 82Ms Sahm's notes indicate that the defendant initially presented as agitated, and stated "I am here under duress". 83However, the clinical notes indicate that each subsequent time the defendant attended with his support persons and presented as inflexible and resistant, but polite and engaged throughout the sessions. 84It was recorded on 24 July 2013 that: "Attendance is good and despite levels of resistance (offender) engages well. The challenge remains that the offender has significant ambivalence to change and experiences this as a vulnerability (causing angry outbursts), failing himself and giving in to the authority of others. This process can impact on the offender's ability to engage in specific treatment goal discussions." 85Ms Sahm noted on 24 September 2013 that: "Overall, John has been progressing with regard to managing his mood and general self-management behaviour. He presents continued agitation toward authority figures and this will be seen by those representing the 'authority role' in his supervision and the rules regarding this, especially when he thinks they are unfair."

(a) Plaintiff's submissions 86The State submitted that the Court should make a further extended supervision order for a period of five years, subject to the proposed conditions it annexed to its written submissions. 87It submitted that without supervision the defendant presents a significant risk to the community. Further, that when considering all aspects of his conduct and presentation, including his past sexual offending and his actions over the past five years whilst subject to the present supervision order, the Court would determine that his risk of committing a further serious sex offence remains high should he not be kept under supervision. 88In support, the State referred to the psychological reports as well as the defendant's offending history and prior breaches of the extended supervision order. 89Despite acknowledging the defendant's recent positive changes, it is argued that these appear to rely heavily upon the support of two particular members of the Christian Motorcycle Club, namely, Ms Bonser and Mr Pearson. The State submitted that the capacity for this relationship to endure in the long term is "tenuous", and that there is a disconnect between the abovementioned Club and the defendant by reason of his pagan and witchcraft beliefs. 90In addition, the State noted that whilst some of the defendant's risk factors may have been resolved, there has been no identifiable resolution of the factors associated with previous episodes of offending. Further, it submitted that the defendant is at a "most escalated risk of engaging in offences related to threatening adult women in their own homes and threatening them with knives". In this respect, the State relies upon the Risk Assessment Report at page 29. 91In respect of the defendant's recent lack of offending, it was the State's submission that this "is a result of the intensive supervision he has been subject to", and whilst there may be potential in the future to reduce aspects of supervision, the defendant's improvements at this stage "are too little and too late to allow a Court to be satisfied that his risk has sufficiently ameliorated to remove supervision".

(b) Defendant's submissions 92The defendant opposed the making of a further extended supervision order. In the alternative, he opposed the imposition of the conditions sought by the State, which he contended amount to an unjustifiably onerous imposition on his liberty. 93With the exception of the four breaches of the defendant's extended supervision order that were previously discussed, Mr Pararajasingham of counsel who appeared on the application on the defendant's behalf, in his helpful written submissions, noted that the fact that the defendant complied with the conditions attached to the extended supervision order imposed by Price J (apart from the four abovementioned breaches): "...demonstrates a marked change in attitude towards his obligations which militates against any identifiable risk. Separately, it also undermines the need for the imposition of any conditions above and beyond those that the defendant is currently subject to": Defendant's written submissions at p 6. 94Mr Pararajasingham relied upon what was referred to as the defendant's "recent pro-social advancement", including his relationship with volunteer supports persons Ms Anne Bonser and Mr Barry Pearson, who he met in mid-2012. Since this time, Ms Bonser and Mr Pearson have been: "...actively involved in reintegrating the defendant into society through general socialising attending appointments with the defendant, introducing the defendant to a weekly bible study group, inviting the defendant to take part in community motorbike rides and teaching the defendant various life skills, most recently about mechanics and electronics": Defendant's written submissions at p 7. 95It was submitted that this relationship with Ms Bonser and Mr Pearson is not tenuous. In support of this submission, reliance was placed upon Ms Bonser's affidavit sworn 24 March 2014. 96It was also noted that the defendant was invited to spend Christmas in 2013 with a family he had come to know through his time in custody. 97These relationships, the defendant submitted, "demonstrate that the defendant is on the path towards normalised integration into the community and point away from the likelihood of the defendant committing further serious sex offences". 98Alternatively, it was submitted that should the Court impose an extended supervision order, the defendant's development "ought to be encouraged and supported through the imposition of the least onerous conditions which would enable the defendant to pursue his various avenues of social congress with minimal interference and disruption". 99In addition, Mr Pararajasingham submitted that the defendant has reduced some of his dynamic risk factors, and that "it is open on the material to infer that the defendant has improved his ability to self-monitor and inhibit anti-social thoughts". In support of this, the defendant cited the recent pro-social advances, as well as the sessions with Ms Jenny Howell, a private therapist. 100In respect of the conditions proposed by the State, the defendant submitted that many of these appear to be directed to the prior breaches of conditions. The defendant argued that: "This not only distracts from the purpose behind the imposition of conditions which must be directed towards mitigating an identified high risk of serious sex offending but amounts to a necessarily onerous incursion into the defendant's liberty": Defendant's written submissions at p 14. 101Further, it was submitted that whilst the defendant's prior conduct are matters that "may well be at their highest manifestations of an anti-social trait or a personality order", these: "...do not alone, or in combination with any other matters, warrant the making of an ESO which is directed towards a very specific and high level risk of sexual reoffending, and ought not to be utilised as a means of simply 'keeping tabs' of a belligerent and overbearing person": Defendant's written submissions at p 15. 102Accordingly, it was submitted that if this Court does make an extended supervision order, that "only those conditions deemed appropriate in light of the legislative purpose behind the Act ought to be imposed".

(a) The requirement that the offender must be a "high risk sex offender" 103As previously noted, this Court may, on application by the State, make an order for the supervision of an offender if the offender is a "high risk sex offender". This requires the Court to be satisfied to a high degree of probability that the offender "poses an unacceptable risk of committing a serious sex offence if he or she is not kept under supervision": s 5B. 104In reaching this conclusion, the Court is not required to determine that the risk of a person committing a serious sexual offence is more likely than not in order to determine that the person poses an unacceptable risk of committing a serious sexual offence: s 5B(3). 105The defendant's prior convictions evidence that he is a "sex offender", and Price J has previous found that the each of the offences committed by the defendant was a "serious sex offence": Attorney General for the State of New South Wales v Wilde [2007] NSWSC 1490. 106Factors to be taken into account when assessing whether the defendant is a high risk sex offender include the likelihood of the person offending, the type of sexual offence which the person is likely to commit (if that can be predicted) and the consequences of making a finding that an unacceptable risk exists: Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Williams [2007] WASC 206; (2007) 176 A Crim R 110 at [63]. This involves a balancing exercise between the likelihood of a serious sex offence being committed in the future, and on the other hand, the serious consequences for the offender: State of New South Wales v Richardson (No 2) [2011] NSWSC 276; (2011) A Crim R 220 at [90]. 107I note that in Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Williams, supra, this Court (Davies J) concluded that although the defendant posed a low risk of committing a serious sex offence, the risk remained unacceptable. 108It has already been observed that the offences committed by the defendant were serious sex offences that involved the use of a knife, and were somewhat similar in their nature. 109The defendant has only spent approximately three years out of prison and in the community since he was 19 years old. 110Since 2008, he has been subject to continuous detention orders and extended supervision orders. His breaches of the conditions of these orders has resulted in him serving further time in prison. 111In considering whether an offender meets the requirements of s 5B, regard may be had to the relevant factors listed in s 9: State of New South Wales v Fisk [2013] NSWSC 364 at [84]. 112Although the defendant has provided an affidavit of Ann Bonser sworn 24 March 2014, which details the various pro-social activities the defendant has engaged in since his release as well as his support network, it is necessary as earlier discussed, that I have regard to the reports ordered pursuant to s 7(4). In their reports, both Professor Greenberg and Dr Samuels agree that there is a high risk the defendant will re-offend, and that the defendant should be subject to some form of an extended supervision order. 113I accept the opinions expressed by both Professor Greenberg and Dr Samuels, which are consistent with Mr Sheehan's stated conclusions. 114Having regard to the relevant reports and the defendant's offending history (including the relevant breaches of conditions imposed upon him), I am satisfied that the defendant is a high risk sex offender, and poses an unacceptable risk of committing a serious sex offence if he is not kept under supervision.

(b) Determination of the State's application for an extended supervision order 115In determining whether to make an extended supervision order, the Court is required to have regard to the relevant factors enumerated in s 9 of the Act in addition to any other matter it considers relevant. These include, but are not limited to: (1)The safety of the community; (2)Psychological reports pursuant to s 7(4) or any other psychiatric, psychological or medical reports, and the offender's level of participation in any such examinations or assessment; (3)Any reports prepared by Corrective Services; (4)Any treatment or rehabilitation programs the defendant has participated in; (5)The level of the defendant's compliance with obligations to which he is, or has been, subject; (6)The offender's criminal history; (7)The views of the sentencing court at the time the sentence of imprisonment was imposed on the offender; (8)Any other information that is available as to the likelihood that the offender will in the future commit offences of a sexual nature. 116Whilst I accept that the defendant has made progress in recent years since his release from prison, and in particular, has not committed any further sexual offences in this time, I cannot accept that this does has not occurred by virtue of the defendant having been subject to an extended supervision order during this time. 117In this respect, I note in particular the conclusion reached in the Risk Assessment Report: "The future risk is chronic in nature in that over time as he was exposed to these risk factors without intervention or interruption, there would be less impediments to a sexual offence": p 29. 118I have had regard to each of the matters referred to in s 9(3)(a), (b), (c), (d), (d1), (f), (h) and (h1) and to the other material tendered in evidence to which I have referred above. 119The evidence establishes that the defendant has a high risk of re-offending, and I am satisfied that an extended supervision order should be made. The duration and conditions of this order will be addressed below.

(c) Duration of the extended supervision order 120This Court may make an extended supervision order for a period not exceeding five years. 121It was the State's submission that due to the entrenched aspects of the defendant's personality disorder and the slow progress made by him in achieving a pro-social lifestyle, a period of five years is appropriate. 122In oral submissions, Mr Pararajasingham argued that his instructions were to oppose the making of any order. In his alternative submission, if an order were to be made it should be for a period not exceeding three years. 123Having regard to the relevant factors in this case, I propose to make an extended supervision order for a period of three years, commencing on 2 April 2014. 124Since his release from prison, the defendant has engaged in pro-social activities and has not sexually re-offended and has demonstrated a degree of appropriate social interaction which, on the evidence, he should be encouraged to further develop in the future. I consider that these factors go towards not imposing the maximum term for the extended supervision order. 125The Act leaves open to the State the opportunity of making a further application if it considers appropriate. At this stage I consider a three-year term to be an appropriate period in properly resolving the conflicting interests and considerations to which I have referred in paragraph [6] above and given, on the evidence, the possibility that exists that the defendant may be able to achieve further progress towards rehabilitation.

Conditions of the Extended Supervision Order 126The Court may direct an offender to comply with such conditions the Court "considers appropriate". This accords with the primary object of the Act, which is to "ensure the safety of the community": s 3(1). 127Section 11 of the Act provides a non-exhaustive list of the types of conditions that may be imposed on high risk sex offenders. These include: (1)To permit any corrective services officer to visit the offender at the offender's residential address at any time and to, for that purpose, to enter the premises at that address. (2)To permit any correct services officer to access any computer or related equipment that is at the offender's residential address or in the possession of the offender. (3)To make periodic reports to a corrective services officer. (4)To notify a corrective services officer of any change to his or her residential address. (5)To wear electronic monitoring equipment. (6)To reside at an address approved by the Commissioner of Corrective Services. (7)Not to reside in or resort to specified locations or classes of locations. (8)Not to associate or make contact with specified persons or classes of persons. (9)Not to engage in specified conduct or classes of conduct. (10)Not to engage in specified employment or classes of employed. (11)Not to change his or her name. 128It was the defendant's submission that the Court must be satisfied as to the appropriateness of any given condition in the context of mitigating the defendant's demonstrated risk of committing future serious sex offences. 129The State annexed to their written submissions a list of the conditions sought. 130In its written submissions on pages 27 to 29 the State highlights certain conditions it proposes and the reasons for them, including the perceived need for electronic monitoring due to the defendant's history of deviating from schedules. 131Mr Pararajasingham drew particular attention to the following proposed conditions: (1)Conditions C(3) and E(4), which relate to a prohibition on associating with outlaw motorcycle gangs, organised criminal networks and criminal organisations; (2)Condition G(1), which relates to access to pornographic, violent and classified material; (3)Conditions I(1)-(3), which relates to the possession or consumption of illicit drugs and alcohol; (4)Condition K(5), which relates to the rights of the Departmental Supervising Officer or any other authorised person to access, inspect, and remove the defendant's computer or other devices. 132I will address the defendant's submission on these proposed conditions, as well as my findings in relation to them below. 133In summary, I have concluded that the conditions referred to below are appropriate to ensure the "supervision" of the defendant during the term of the extended supervision order I will impose. The fact that the conditions may be of a kind appropriate for a range of offenders does not carry the conclusion that they are not appropriate in the defendant's case.

Proposed Conditions C(3) and E(4) 134In response to concerns raised regarding the wording of conditions C(3) and E(4), the State amended these conditions to now read as follows: C(3): The defendant must not attend any premises that [are frequented by members and/or associates] he knows to be frequented by any person he knows to be a member and/or associate of any Outlaw Motorcycle Gang, Organised Criminal Network, or Criminal Organisation (as declared under the Crimes (Criminal Organisations Control) Act 2012) E(4): The defendant must not associate with any [member and/or associates] person he knows to be a member and/or associate of any Outlaw Motorcycle Gang, Organised Criminal Network, or Criminal Organisation (as declared under the Crimes (Criminal Organisations Control) Act 2012), without the prior approval of the Departmental supervising officer). 135In its written submissions, the State observed that the defendant has stated a desire to engage with such persons and clubs as identified in proposed conditions C(3) and E(4) and accordingly, that such conditions are essential, noting the anti-social behaviours that prevail in those organisations: State's written submissions at p 29. 136In its reply to the amended condition set out above, the defendant maintained his submission that this condition has no proper basis, on the grounds that "no rational link has been established between the existence of outlaw motorcycle gangs, organised criminal networks and criminal organisations and the incidence of serious sex offences". 137I would accept this condition in its amended form addresses relevant risk factors associated with anti-social behaviours that limits the prospect for rehabilitation and re-integration of the defendant into the community. 138The Act specifically foreshadows the making of conditions to prohibit a serious sex offender from associating with specified persons or classes of persons, and I would consider that proposed conditions C(3) and E(4) in their amended form assists in upholding the objects of the Act.

Proposed Condition G(1) 139Proposed condition G(1) states: "The defendant must not purchase, possess, access, obtain, view, participate in or listen to material classified or material that would be classified as Refused Classification and X18+, or any other material as directed by the Departmental Supervising Officer." 140Having regard to the serious violent sexual offences that have been previously committed by the defendant, I am satisfied this proposed condition directly addresses the future risk of violent sexual re-offending materialising from viewing classified material that has violent content, and accordingly, is not unjustifiably onerous or punitive.

Proposed Conditions I(1)-(3) 141The defendant submitted that the proposed conditions under Part K do not directly address the future risk of sexual re-offending, and instead, are directed at the defendant's personality disorder. 142Proposed conditions I(1)-(3) read as follows: 1. The defendant must not possess or consume any illicit drugs. 2. The defendant must not possess or consume any alcohol (including any alcohol-based products such as methylated spirits), without prior approval of the Departmental supervising officer. 3. The defendant must submit to drug and alcohol testing as directed by the Departmental supervising officer or any officer of Corrective Services NSW who from time to time supervises the defendant. 143There is no evidence suggesting that the defendant's prior offences were committed under the influence of illicit drugs or alcohol. 144However, an extended supervision order may properly restrict consumption of alcohol and prohibit non-prescription drugs as a means of controlling possible risk factors to sexual re-offending behaviour. 145I consider this order to be appropriate, and would not consider it to be unjustifiably onerous or punitive, having regard to the fact that under proposed condition I(2), the defendant is able to seek approval to possess or consumer alcohol.

Proposed Condition K(5) 146Proposed condition K(5) provides: 5. If and as directed by the Departmental Supervising Officer, the defendant must: a. permit the Departmental Supervising Officer or any other person, to access, inspect and remove any computer or other device (including mobile phone or tablet computer) used by or owned by the defendant, including the temporary removal of the computer or other device from the defendant's place of residence or his or her person for the purpose of inspection or the imaging of the contents of the computer; b. take all available steps to permit the Departmental Supervising Officer or any other person to have access to and inspect any computer or other device (including mobile phone or tablet computer) used by or owned by the defendant; c. provide the Departmental Supervising Officer or any other person with any requested assistance to enable either or both of them to access and inspect any computer or other device (including mobile phone or tablet computer) used by or owned by the defendant, including providing them with any required passwords; d. permit the Departmental Supervising Officer or any other person to make copies of any files or materials on any computer or other device (including mobile phone or tablet computer) used by or owned by the defendant that the Departmental Supervising Officer reasonably believes may be relevant to the management of the defendant's risk of re-offending. 147Having regard to the supervisory nature of the order and for the reasons I have stated in respect of proposed condition G(1), and having regard to the defendant's prior breach of conditions in contacting a person over Facebook, I do not consider that the condition is unjustifiably onerous or punitive. 148For the same reasons, I would also find the proposed conditions under Part F, which relate to internet access and social network use, to be appropriate.

Conditions Imposed on the Defendant 149I would accordingly order all of the conditions sought by the State in their written submissions, with conditions C(3) and E(4) being in their amended form. 150The conditions as ordered will be initialled by me and placed with the Court file. Copies of these conditions will be handed to the parties and they also appear as Schedule "A" to this judgment.

Orders 151I make an order pursuant to s 9(1)(a) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 for an extended supervision order in respect of the defendant, John Alan Wilde, for a term of three years from 2 April 2014. 152I make an order pursuant to s 11 of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 that, for the period of the extended supervision order, the defendant comply with conditions 1-65 as set out in Schedule "A" to this judgment.

SCHEDULE a - CONDITIONS OF THE EXTENDED SUPERVISION ORDER

Part A. Reporting and monitoring obligations (1)The defendant must accept the supervision of Corrective Services NSW. (2)The defendant must report to the Departmental supervising officer or to another person nominated by the Departmental supervising officer at such times and places as the Departmental supervising officer or nominee may from time to time direct. (3)The defendant must comply with any reasonable direction given by the Departmental supervising officer or any other officer of Corrective Services NSW who may from time to time supervise the defendant.

Electronic monitoring (4)If directed by the Departmental supervising officer, the defendant must wear electronic monitoring equipment. (5)The defendant must comply with all instructions given by the Departmental supervising officer or an officer of Corrective Services NSW in relation to the operation of such electronic monitoring equipment. (6)If directed by the Departmental supervising officer to wear electronic monitoring equipment, the defendant must not tamper with, remove, or interfere with the operation of such equipment.

Schedule of movements (7)If directed by the Departmental supervising officer, the defendant must inform the Departmental supervising officer of his or her movements in advance: (a)either orally or in writing; (b)for a period of 7 days ("the schedule period"), unless a shorter schedule period is approved by the Departmental supervising officer; and (c)given to the Departmental supervising officer at least 3 days prior to the commencement of the schedule period. (8)The defendant must notify the Departmental supervising officer of any change to the schedule at least 24 hours in advance, unless a shorter period is approved by the Departmental supervising officer. (9)Condition 9 does not apply in the case of an emergency and the defendant is unable to notify the Departmental supervising officer, including if the defendant requires urgent medical attention. (10)The defendant must respond accurately to the best of his or her knowledge and ability to all enquiries by the Departmental supervising officer, or any other officer of Corrective Services NSW who may from time to time supervise the defendant, regarding the defendant's whereabouts and movements generally.

Part B. Accommodation (11)The defendant must reside at an address approved by the Departmental supervising officer. (12)If the defendant resides at a residential facility, the defendant must obey all reasonable instructions given by the residential facility staff that are necessary to ensure the good order of the residential facility or the safety and welfare of residents, staff or visitors to the facility. (13)The defendant must not permit any person to enter and remain, or to stay overnight, at the defendant's approved address, without the prior approval of the Departmental supervising officer. (14)The defendant must not stay overnight at any place other than the defendant's approved address without prior approval of the Departmental supervising officer. (15)The defendant must permit the Departmental supervising officer, or any other officer of Corrective Services who may from time to time supervise the defendant, to visit the defendant at the defendant's approved address at any time and, for that purpose, to enter the premises at that address. (16)If directed by the Departmental supervising officer, the defendant must be at his or her approved address between 9pm and 6am (or such other hours as may be specified by the Departmental supervising officer) unless the defendant's presence at another place during those hours has been approved by the Departmental supervising officer.

Part C. Place and travel restrictions (17)The defendant must not frequent or visit any place or areas specified by the Departmental supervising officer. (18)The defendant must not leave the State of New South Wales without the written permission of the Commissioner of Corrective Services ("the Commissioner") or his delegate. (19)The defendant must not attend any premises that he knows to be frequented by any person who he knows to be a member and/or associate of any Outlaw Motorcycle Gang, Organised Criminal Network, or Criminal Organisation (as declared under the Crimes (Criminal Organisations Control) Act 2012). (20)The defendant must not hitchhike or pick up anyone who is hitchhiking.

Employment & finance (21)The defendant must not engage in the following activities ("employment activities") except with the prior approval of the Departmental supervising officer: (d)paid or unpaid employment (including self employment); (e)volunteer work; (f)practical training as part of an educational or vocational course; or (g)operate or carry on any business. (22)The defendant must notify the Departmental supervising officer of: (a)the nature of the defendant's employment activities or proposed employment activities; (b)any offer of employment activities; (c)the hours of employment activities each day; (d)the name of the person who is or will be responsible for the defendant's employment activities ("the employer"); (e)the address of the premises where the defendant is or will be undertaking employment activities; (23)The defendant must agree that, if the Departmental supervising officer considers it appropriate to do so, the Departmental supervising officer may contact any supervisor, employer or prospective employer of the defendant, for the purpose of obtaining information relating to the defendant's employment activities. NOTE: The defendant accepts that if the Departmental supervising officer considers it appropriate for the defendant to disclose to any prospective employer information relating to the defendant's criminal history and / or that the defendant is subject to this order and the terms of the order, and the defendant refuses to make such a disclosure, then it is a basis upon which the employment may not be approved.

Education (24)The defendant must not engage in any educational courses without the prior approval of the Departmental supervising officer: (25)The defendant must notify the Departmental supervising officer of: (a)any offer to undertake any proposed educational courses; (b)the nature of the proposed educational courses; (c)the frequency and the duration of the proposed educational courses; (d)the name of the person who is or will be responsible for the defendant's educational courses ("the supervisor"); and (e)the address of the premises where the defendant is or will be undertaking educational courses. (26)The defendant must agree that, if the Departmental supervising officer considers it appropriate to do so, the Departmental supervising officer may contact the defendant's supervisor for the purpose of obtaining information relating to the defendant's educational courses. NOTE: The defendant accepts that if the Departmental supervising officer considers it appropriate for the defendant to disclose to any prospective supervisor information relating to the defendant's criminal history and / or that the defendant is subject to this order and the terms of the order, and the defendant refuses to make such a disclosure, then it is a basis upon which the educational course may not be approved.

Non-associations generally (27)The defendant must not associate, contact or communicate with any persons specified by the Departmental supervising officer. (28)The defendant must not contact or communicate by any means (directly or indirectly) with, or attempt to contact or communicate by any means (directly or indirectly) with, the victims of the sexual offences for which the defendant was sentenced on 18 November 1981, 1 March 1985 and 11 June 1993. (29)Without limiting condition 1, the defendant must not knowingly associate with any person convicted of a "serious sex offence" or an "offence of a sexual nature" as defined by the Act without the prior approval of the Departmental supervising officer and except in the course of living in an approved address, undertaking any educational programs, employment activities, maintenance, treatment or rehabilitation programs that have been approved by the Departmental supervising officer. (30)The defendant must not associate with any person he knows to be a member and/or associate of any Outlaw Motorcycle Gang, Organised Criminal Network, or Criminal Organisation (as declared under the Crimes (Criminal Organisations Control) Act 2012), without the prior approval of the Departmental supervising officer.

Relationship (31)The defendant must notify the Departmental supervising officer as soon as possible of any relationship with another person ("the other person") involving sexual or intimate contact. (32)The defendant must consent to the Departmental supervising officer disclosing the defendant's offence history and that the defendant is on this order (and details of the order) to the other person if the Departmental supervising officer is satisfied that to do so is necessary or desirable in the interests of the safety of the other person.

Club affiliations (33)The defendant must obtain written permission from the Departmental supervising officer prior to joining or affiliating with any club or organisation.

Internet use (34)The defendant must comply with any direction given by the Departmental Supervising Officer regarding access to the internet by the defendant on any computer or other device (including mobile phone or tablet computer), including but not limited to: (a)the use of parental lock or other device or software that may restrict access to or permit access only to certain web sites; (b)the times and places that the defendant is permitted to access the internet; (c)accepting the presence of an appropriate person, being a person previously approved in writing by the Departmental supervising officer for the purpose of this condition; (d)restricting the use of the internet for specified purposes; and (e)the use of Skype or any Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) or other similar services without the prior approval of the Departmental supervising officer. (35)The defendant must provide the Departmental supervising officer with details of the type of any internet connection used, or intended to be used, by the defendant, including whether the connection is a wireless, broadband, ADSL or dial-up connection. (36)The defendant must provide the Departmental supervising officer with details of any email addresses, internet user names, instant messaging user names, chat room user names or any other user name or identity used, or intended to be used, by the defendant through the internet. (37)The defendant must provide an inventory of any communication devices and data storage devices in the defendant's possession and advise the Departmental supervising officer of any change to the inventory immediately.

Social networking services (38)The defendant must not access, join and / or connect to any internet based social networking service, including web-based, e-mail, instant messaging services and on-line community services ("internet based social networking services"), without the prior approval of the Departmental Supervising Officer. (39)In circumstances where the defendant is approved under condition 5 to access, join and / or connect to any internet based social networking service, the defendant must: (a)inform the Departmental Supervising Officer of any login identification name and password for any internet based social networking service the defendant joins and / or connects to; and (b)comply with the rules and conditions of that service.

Part G. Access to Pornographic, Violent and Classified Material (40)The defendant must not purchase, possess, access, obtain, view, participate in or listen to material classified or material that would be classified as Refused Classification and X18+, or any other material as directed by the Departmental Supervising Officer.

Part H. Access to Weapons (41)The defendant must not possess or use any firearm within the meaning of s.4 of the Firearms Act 1996 or prohibited weapon as defined in s.3 and Schedule 1 of the Weapons Prohibition Act 1998.

Part I. Alcohol and drugs (42)The defendant must not possess or consume any illicit drugs. (43)The defendant must not possess or consume any alcohol (including any alcohol-based products such as methylated spirits), without prior approval of the Departmental supervising officer. (44)The defendant must submit to drug and alcohol testing as directed by the Departmental supervising officer or any officer of Corrective Services NSW who from time to time supervises the defendant.

Part J. Gambling No conditions applicable to the defendant in this Part.

Part K. Search and Seizure (45)If the Departmental supervising officer reasonably believes that a search (of the type referred to in sub-paragraphs (d) to (f) below) is necessary: (a)for the safety and welfare of residents or staff or any other person present at the defendant's approved address; (b)to monitor the defendant's compliance with this order; or (c)because the Departmental supervising officer reasonably suspects the defendant of behaviour or conduct associated with an increased risk of the defendant committing a serious sex offence; then the Departmental supervising officer may direct, and the defendant must submit to, a: (d)search and inspection of any part of, or any thing in, the defendant's approved address; (e)search and inspection of any part of, or any thing in, any vehicle owned, hired by or under the control of the defendant; and/or (f)search and examination of his or her person. (46)For the purposes of paragraph (f): (a)a search of the defendant means either or both a garment search or a pat-down search. (b)to the extent practicable a pat-down search will be conducted by a Departmental supervising officer of the same sex as the defendant, or by an officer of Corrective Services NSW of the same sex as the defendant under the direction of the Departmental supervising officer. NOTE: "Garment search" means a search of any article of clothing worn by the defendant or in the defendant's possession, where the article of clothing is touched or removed from the person's body. "Pat-down search" means a search of a person where the person's clothed body is touched. (47)During a search carried out pursuant to condition 1, the defendant must allow the Departmental supervising officer to seize any thing found in the defendant's approved address, any vehicle owned, hired by or under the control of the defendant, or on the defendant's person, whether in the defendant's possession or not, which the Departmental supervising officer reasonably suspects will compromise: (a)the safety of residents or of staff at the defendant's approved address; (b)the welfare or safety of any member of the public or any other person; or (c)the defendant's compliance with this order; or which the Departmental supervising officer reasonably suspects relates to behaviour or conduct associated with an increased risk of the defendant committing a serious sex offence. (48)The defendant must not attempt to destroy or interfere with any object that is the subject of a search or seizure carried out pursuant to conditions 1 or 3.

Search of computer (49)If and as directed by the Departmental Supervising Officer, the defendant must: (a)permit the Departmental Supervising Officer or any other person, to access, inspect and remove any computer or other device (including mobile phone or tablet computer) used by or owned by the defendant, including the temporary removal of the computer or other device from the defendant's place of residence or his or her person for the purpose of inspection or the imaging of the contents of the computer; (b)take all available steps to permit the Departmental Supervising Officer or any other person to have access to and inspect any computer or other device (including mobile phone or tablet computer) used by or owned by the defendant; (c)provide the Departmental Supervising Officer or any other person with any requested assistance to enable either or both of them to access and inspect any computer or other device (including mobile phone or tablet computer) used by or owned by the defendant, including providing them with any required passwords; (d)permit the Departmental Supervising Officer or any other person to make copies of any files or materials on any computer or other device (including mobile phone or tablet computer) used by or owned by the defendant that the Departmental Supervising Officer reasonably believes may be relevant to the management of the defendant's risk of re-offending. (50)The defendant must not attempt to destroy or interfere with any computer or other device that is the subject of access or inspection carried out pursuant to conditions 1 to 5 above.

Part L. Personal details and appearance (51)The defendant must not change his or her name from John Alan Wilde, or use any name other than John Alan Wilde without the prior approval of the Departmental supervising officer. (52)The defendant must not, without the approval of the Departmental supervising officer, change his or her appearance to the extent that the defendant cannot be easily recognised. (53)The defendant must allow himself or herself to be photographed by or on behalf of the Departmental supervising officer. (54)The defendant must provide the Departmental supervising officer with information regarding any tattoos or permanent distinguishing marks that the defendant has (including details of any tattoo or mark that has been removed).

Part M. Medical intervention & treatment obligations (55)The defendant must undergo any assessment as recommended by his or her: (a)medical or other professional consultant; or (b)other technical adviser; to determine what is required for treatment in respect of the defendant's potential risk for re-offending.

Psychological intervention and other treatment (56)The defendant must, if so directed by the Departmental supervising officer, undergo psychological assessment, counselling and any other treatment at a place or places determined by the Departmental supervising officer. NOTE: It is noted that the "reasonable directions" in Part A and the participation in treatment under this Part do not require participation in treatment, or taking of any medication that may be prescribed, without the defendant's informed consent.

Medical and psychological information (57)The defendant must disclose to the Departmental supervising officer the identity of any medical, other professional consultant, or other technical adviser that the defendant consults, as soon as reasonably practicable. (58)The defendant must consent to the Departmental supervising officer and other officers from the Department (including from Corrective Services NSW) collecting and using all relevant information regarding the defendant's progress while subject to supervision, which may include confidential medical information disclosed in the course of the defendant's assessment and treatment. (59)The defendant must agree to the disclosure of all information between: (a)the Departmental supervising officer; and / or (b)other officers from the Department (including from Corrective Services NSW); and / or (c)any medical, other professional consultant; or other technical adviser. NOTE: In relation to disclosure of information relating to the defendant's treatment, the nature of the defendant's consent under condition 3(c) is limited to circumstances where the medical, other professional consultant, or other technical adviser believes the defendant is at risk of: a) committing a further serious sex offence; b) is demonstrating behaviours that may lead to the commission of a further serious sex offence; c) is at risk of breaching a condition of the defendant's supervision relevant to (a) and (b) of this note; or d) is with the consent of the defendant.

Telecommunication and internet service provider (60)The defendant must provide the Departmental supervising officer details of any carriage service (within the meaning of the Telecommunications Act 1997 of the Commonwealth) used, or intended to be used, by the defendant. (61)The defendant must provide the Departmental supervising officer details of any internet service provider or provider of a carriage service (within the meaning of the Telecommunications Act 1997 of the Commonwealth) used, or intended to be used, by the defendant. (62)The defendant must consent to the disclosure of the defendant's personal information held by any internet service provider or provider of a carriage service (within the meaning of the Telecommunications Act 1997 of the Commonwealth) used, or intended to be used by the defendant, to the Departmental supervising officer.

Vehicle details (63)The defendant must notify the Departmental supervising officer of the make, model, colour and registration number of any vehicle: (a)owned by him or her; or (b)driven or to be driven by him or her, whether hired or otherwise obtained for the defendant's use.

Forms of identification (64)The defendant must provide the Departmental supervising officer with details of any valid forms of identification used by the defendant including but not limited to driver's licence and personal identification cards. (65)If the defendant changes the details of any current form of identification or obtains any further forms of identification, the defendant must provide the Departmental supervising officer with such details.

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: 02 April 2014