State of New South Wales v Williamson

Judgment 1By way of an amended summons of 24 April 2014, the plaintiff seeks a number of orders. The first is an order appointing two psychiatrists to conduct examinations of the defendant and provide reports about him by a certain date, and directing that the defendant attend upon those two nominated psychiatrists, pursuant to s 7(4) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) ("the Act"). The second is an interim extended supervision order with regard to the defendant, pursuant to s 10A of the Act. The third order sought requires that the defendant comply with certain conditions during the period of the interim order, pursuant to s 11 of the Act. The fourth order sought sets out a timetable for the progress of the matter. Finally, an order is sought restricting access to the court file unless a judge of this Court grants leave. 2The defendant, who is represented by counsel very experienced in defending matters of this kind, has expressly consented to the making of all of the orders sought by the plaintiff. In light of the position of the defendant, my analysis of the matter can be briefer than it would have been if the making of the orders had been disputed. Nevertheless, it remains for me to be separately satisfied of their appropriateness. A multitude of offences of sexual violence 3The foundation of these proceedings is the fact that, over 20 years ago, the defendant committed a number of exceptionally serious sexual offences. I shall recount their objective features briefly. This recitation is founded on the agreed facts that were tendered in proceedings on sentence in 1991. 4At about 11 PM on 5 August 1989, a 13-year-old girl was walking home from a social event in Bulli, near Wollongong. The defendant observed her from his motor vehicle. He parked the vehicle, and dressed himself in a balaclava and a pair of gloves that he had with him in the car. He also armed himself with a folding knife. He lay in wait for the victim in the grounds of a high school. She became aware of his presence and tried to run away, but he chased and captured her. She was marched at knife point into the grounds of the high school. There the defendant ordered her to remove her clothes and lie on the ground. He blindfolded her with her own clothing. The defendant then performed oral sex upon the victim and had penile/vaginal sexual intercourse with her. He ejaculated on the ground near her person. After that he permitted her to dress herself, and marched her out of the school grounds. Eventually he released her, but not before ordering her not to tell anybody what had happened or he would "come and get her". On returning home the victim made an immediate complaint to her mother. During her ordeal the victim was in fear for her life. 5On the evening of 17 September 1989, the second victim, a 15-year-old girl, was staying at an address in Bulli. Some time after she went to bed at 9 PM, the defendant gained entry to her bedroom and woke her. He was wearing a balaclava and gloves, was in possession of a torch, and was armed with a knife. A struggle ensued, and the defendant threatened the victim by holding the knife to her throat. He dragged her away from the premises to a park about one kilometre from the point of abduction. 6There she was ordered to undress, and was blindfolded with articles of her clothing. While still holding the knife to the throat of the victim, the defendant performed oral sex upon her, and thereafter had penile/vaginal sexual intercourse with her. He ejaculated on the grass nearby. The defendant decamped. He left the victim lying on the ground, partly clothed, still blindfolded, and with her hands tied by a portion of her clothing. After some time she freed herself, ran to the nearest house, and complained to the occupant. During the attack, the victim had received a number of cuts to her hands and left breast from the knife wielded by the defendant. 7In the early hours of 6 November 1989, the third victim, an 11-year-old boy, was sleeping in his bed at his home in Bulli. The defendant drove to the premises in a motor vehicle that he had stolen in the preceding days, and gained entry through a closed window. He was wearing a balaclava and gloves, was carrying a torch, and was armed with a folding knife. The defendant ordered the victim from his bed, took him to the motor vehicle that was parked nearby, and placed him into its boot. The defendant drove to bushland in the area of Mount Kembla. 8There he removed the victim from the boot, blindfolded him with an item of his own clothing, and placed him in the backseat of the car. The defendant masturbated the victim, performed oral sex upon him, and then forced the young boy to perform oral sex upon the defendant. Later the defendant attempted to have penile/anal sexual intercourse with the victim. 9The victim was then placed in the boot again, driven around the Mount Kembla area, and ultimately left in bushland. The boy walked for some distance in darkness before coming to a home; there he informed the occupants of his ordeal. 10In the early hours of 5 February 1990, the fourth victim, a 26-year-old woman, was sleeping in her bedroom. With her was her four-year-old son. 11The defendant gained entry to the premises by manipulating the security chain on the rear door. He woke the victim from her sleep. He was wearing a balaclava and gloves, and was armed with a folding knife. 12The defendant ordered the victim to roll onto her back and undress. He then bound her hands behind her back and blindfolded her with articles of her clothing. He informed the victim that he was looking for money and that he intended to have sexual intercourse with her. The victim requested that her son be taken from the room. The defendant complied with that request, but whilst doing so indicated that the child would be harmed if he screamed. 13The defendant returned to the victim and had penile/vaginal sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter he forced her to perform oral sex upon him, and he ejaculated in her mouth. The victim became physically sick, and was ordered by the defendant to go to the bathroom and wash out her mouth. She complied with that order. By that stage her hands had been unbound but she was still blindfolded. 14Upon her return, the defendant again forced the victim to perform oral sex upon him. He then fled. The victim informed her next-door neighbour of what had happened. During the crimes, she was "extremely terrified" for her own safety and that of her son. 15On 15 February 1990, the fifth victim, a 13-year-old girl, was alone in her family home. She went to bed at about 11 PM. At about 2 AM she heard noises outside her house. She investigated but found nothing, and returned to bed. The noises were caused by the defendant, who had been outside the home and keeping the victim under observation. He established that she was alone in the house, and gained entry by manipulating the lock on the rear screen door. He entered the bedroom of the victim. At the time he was wearing a balaclava and gloves, and was armed with a folding knife. 16The defendant demanded money from the victim, and searched her room. The victim was blindfolded with her own clothes. The defendant told the victim that he was armed, and instructed her to remove her clothing. She did so. The defendant then had penile/vaginal sexual intercourse with the victim. After that he forced her to perform oral sex upon him. At a later stage he had penile/vaginal sexual intercourse with her again. He left the victim still blindfolded and highly distressed. The victim complained to her mother upon the latter's return to the home early the next morning. 17Early in the morning of 22 March 1990, the sixth victim, a woman then aged 24 years, was at home with the seventh victim, her five-year-old daughter, along with her two-year-old son. At the time, the sixth victim was seven months pregnant. The sixth victim was in one bedroom with her son. The seventh victim was lying in another, smaller bedroom. At about 3 AM the defendant stood on a garbage can at the side of the house and used a folding knife to manipulate the lock on a window. He entered the home and went to the bedroom of the sixth victim. At the time he was wearing a balaclava and gloves, and was in possession of the knife. 18The defendant threatened the sixth victim, blindfolded her with material found in the room, and bound her hands behind her back. The defendant then pulled up the sixth victim's nightdress, and cut her pants from her body. He placed his hand on the outside of her vagina. The defendant then left the room to search the house for valuables. While the defendant was absent, the sixth victim worked her hands free and removed the blindfold. The defendant subsequently returned to the sixth victim's bedroom, rebound her hands, and blindfolded her again. While doing this he repeatedly poked the sixth victim with the point of his knife. 19The defendant then went to the smaller bedroom where the seventh victim, the five-year-old daughter, was sleeping. Her woke her up, and told to take off her nightdress. She did so. The defendant then attempted to have penile/vaginal sexual intercourse with the seventh victim, but was unable to do so because of the size of her body. The seventh victim began to cry. After dressing and undressing the seventh victim, the defendant inserted his penis into her mouth, and ejaculated onto a towel in the bedroom. At a later time he again inserted his penis into the mouth of the seventh victim, while he was alone with her in the smaller bedroom. 20The defendant then left the premises. At this stage the sixth victim was still bound and blindfolded. After approximately 15 minutes the sixth victim was able to work her hands free and remove the blindfold. She then alerted the local police. Throughout the ordeal the sixth victim feared for the safety of her two children, her own safety, and the safety of her unborn child. 21Around this time, police investigations had led to the defendant becoming one of a number of suspects. On 30 March 1990 two police officers attended the home of the defendant and spoke with his parents, who permitted the police officers to search the defendant's room. The defendant was also asked to supply police with a blood sample. He obliged, and was conveyed to Wollongong District Hospital for this purpose. 22Soon after midnight on 15 April 1990 the eighth victim, a 43-year-old woman, was at home alone. Whilst she was bathing, the defendant gained entry to the premises by using his knife to manipulate the lock of a window in the front bedroom. When the victim got out of the bath, she saw the defendant outside the bathroom wearing a beanie (fashioned into a balaclava) and gloves. He was also holding his knife. She closed and bolted the bathroom door, but the defendant quickly forced it open. The victim began to scream and a struggle ensued. In the course of the struggle the victim received a deep laceration to her left hand. The defendant ran from the house. Police attended the premises a short time later to find the victim "totally distraught". She was later conveyed to hospital via ambulance. 23Later that morning, the defendant attended another house nearby. The ninth victim, a 21-year-old woman, and the tenth victim, a woman aged 18 years, were staying in the house while the occupants were away. The defendant placed a garbage container under a downstairs window, climbed onto it, removed the flyscreen, opened the window, and climbed through it. He was wearing gloves and a beanie pulled over his face, and was armed with a knife. 24The defendant went upstairs to the bedroom where the ninth victim was sleeping. She woke up to see the defendant just outside the bedroom door, and began screaming. The defendant placed his hand over her mouth, and a struggle ensued. The defendant eventually overpowered the victim, and bound her hands with clothing. He asked her for money, and searched a number of rooms on the first floor of the house. He later returned to the bedroom where the ninth defendant was lying with her hands bound, and proceeded to bind her feet. He then continued to search for money. 25At this time the ninth victim managed to free her hands and telephone her 22-year-old brother, who lived nearby. Her brother armed himself with a "kendo sword" and ran to the premises. 26Meanwhile, the defendant entered the ground floor bedroom where the tenth victim was sleeping. He woke her up and was in the process of binding her hands when the ninth victim's brother disturbed him. After a short confrontation, the defendant ran from the premises. The ninth victim's brother pursued him for some distance before losing sight of him. 27Police attended the premises shortly afterwards, but were unable to locate the defendant. Neither of the victims was physically injured, but the ninth victim was "in a state of hysteria" and the tenth victim was "distressed". 28On 27 April 1990 the defendant stole a motor vehicle from outside a home in Corrimal and drove it to Wollongong. On 4 May 1990 he drove the vehicle to the Balgownie area. While driving in that vicinity at about 10:15 PM, the defendant saw the eleventh victim, a 16-year-old girl, walking along the side of the road. He pulled over, grabbed hold of the victim, and attempted to drag her into the motor vehicle. At the time the defendant was wearing a stocking mask and gloves, and was armed with a knife. The victim screamed, and a struggle ensued. During the struggle the leather jacket worn by the victim was slashed across its back, and she suffered injuries to her face, neck, and back. Neighbours were alerted to the struggle by the screams of the victim, and the defendant drove away. Police attended and searched the area without success. 29Some hours later, at about 12:15 AM on 5 May 1990, police pursued the defendant, who was still driving the stolen motor vehicle, throughout the Corrimal area. The defendant abandoned the motor vehicle and ran into a large building site. He was eventually located and arrested. He was then conveyed to Corrimal Police Station and interviewed with regard to the attack on the eleventh victim. The defendant made full admissions in relation to this incident. 30The defendant was also interviewed in relation to the attacks committed on the eighth, ninth, and tenth victims. The defendant initially admitted responsibility for these offences, but feigned an inability to give pertinent details in response to questioning. Later in the interview he denied any involvement in those attacks, claiming that he had wanted the "kudos" of being the "Bulli rapist". In a subsequent interview conducted after his second arrest, he told police that he had purposely given incorrect details of these attacks in an effort to divert the investigation away from himself. 31After the interview on 5 May 1990 the defendant was charged only with the offence committed against the eleventh victim. He appeared at Wollongong Local Court on 7 May 1990. He was granted bail, and released into the custody of his parents on 8 May 1990. 32On 13 May 1990 the defendant breached bail and stole a motor vehicle. He later abandoned it and stole another one. On 14 May 1990 he stole food and items suitable for camping from a home in the Mount Kembla area, and "went bush". The defendant was rearrested on 17 May 1990. At the time he was in possession of items that were undoubtedly possessed with the intention of committing further offences of sexual violence. 33With regard to all offences, the defendant used a police scanner that was in his possession in order to evade detection. 34Eventually the defendant admitted to the commission of all offences, and pleaded guilty to them. 35The immense heinousness of the offences committed by the defendant requires no elaboration. Nor does the fact that they must have caused years of psychological suffering to their victims. Nor does the undoubted proposition that for some months persons who lived in that part of New South Wales were terrorised by the possibility of being a victim of the defendant. 36A number of matters require emphasis. The first is that the offences featured a substantial degree of forethought, planning, and preparation. The second is that the victims of the defendant were both female and male. The third is that the victims were both adults and children. The fourth is that, by their very nature, the crimes of the defendant lead one to reflect very carefully upon the risk of the commission of further such crimes during his lifetime. At the time of the offences 37Apart from a minor larceny, the defendant had no criminal record when he committed these crimes. However, he has accepted subsequently that these offences were not the first sexual offences that he committed. In late adolescence he commenced to rub up against women in public places; to pry upon them; to steal their underwear; and ultimately to break into their homes and watch them while they were sleeping. The latter three activities were accompanied by masturbation. 38At the time of the offences the defendant was aged 20 years. He was unemployed and living with his parents. As one would expect, his psychological state was disturbed. In a report dated 27 July 1990 Dr Barclay, forensic psychiatrist, stated that there was nothing to indicate that the defendant was suffering from any mental illness or antisocial personality disorder. Dr Barclay noted, however, that the defendant felt embarrassed about his appearance and was lacking confidence generally. He was shy and reserved at school. He particularly lacked the ability to form close or intimate relationships with girls and women. Prior to the commission of these offences, he had had one sexual partner. She ended the relationship as a result of his predilection for violence in their sexual contact. Dr Barclay suggested that aggression arising from the breakdown of this intimate relationship, which occurred approximately two months before the first offence was committed, combined with the death of the defendant's grandmother approximately one month before that time, may have played a part in the defendant's criminality. 39It is clear from later documentation that, by the time of the commission of the offences, the defendant had developed an intense resentment of women. The offences were motivated not only by a desire to obtain sexual gratification, but also to exercise control over his victims. Since the offences 40The defendant pleaded guilty to all offences; some were dealt with on indictment, and some on a Form 2 (as it was then known). On 9 December 1991 Loveday J of this Court sentenced the defendant. His Honour described the totality of the defendant's criminality as "horrendous". 41A total head sentence of imprisonment for 24 years with a total non-parole period of 14 years, to date from 17 May 1990, was imposed. There is no need to detail the sentence structure. 42His Honour explained that his reason for imposing a parole period in excess of that for which the applicable sentencing legislation provided was "to allow [the defendant] adequate time to integrate into the community under supervision after a lengthy period of imprisonment". His Honour went on to say that "Before [the defendant is] in fact granted parole I would expect that the authorities would have to be satisfied that [he does] not pose any continuing threat to society." 43During the first many years of his sentence, the defendant was a reserved prisoner who caused few problems. He took no steps, however, to address his criminality and the psychological issues that underpinned it. It was not until the late 1990s that he attended the well-known program for sexual offenders, CUBIT, a step that he subsequently described as his "turning point". 44From that point on he has committed himself to addressing the underlying causes of his criminality and to rehabilitating himself. He has availed himself of a great deal of psychological and psychiatric help for many years. Quite apart from that, since 2004 he has been prepared to take medication directed towards reducing his libido. That is despite the fact that the medication carries the risk of serious long-term side effects. The evidence establishes that the medication has been very successful in reducing the sex drive of the defendant. In contrast to the position before he commenced to take the medication, the defendant no longer derives pleasure from fantasising about sexual violence. 45The expiry of the total non-parole period of the defendant came and went in 2004. Both the defendant and the authorities were very reticent about him being released too early. He did not seek to push the issue of his release to parole. The defendant steadily progressed through the system of gaol classification, and was eventually permitted to leave prison by way of a large number of day releases in the company of his mother and a member of the Salvation Army. 46The defendant was eventually released to parole on 16 February 2012. As one would expect, his conditions of parole were extremely rigorous, and included a number of significant restrictions on his liberty. At first he lived in supported and supervised accommodation adjacent to Long Bay Correctional Centre. After several months, he was permitted to live in his own premises. There have been no breaches of parole whatsoever, and the authorities are very pleased with his progress in rebuilding his life in the community. He is living independently, working part-time, obtaining regular psychological help, seeing his mother, focusing upon his fitness and general health, and living a quiet and abstemious life. 47The head sentence of the applicant expires completely on 15 May 2014. It can be seen that, in the result, if no extended supervision order is made, the defendant will have spent almost 20 years in custody, and will thereafter have spent only two years living in the community subject to conditional liberty. Aspects of the current position 48The Crown placed particular emphasis on four reports that formed part of the supporting documentation. 49The first is a report prepared by Anna Woodrow, senior psychologist, dated 10 August 2011. Ms Woodrow applied the STATIC 99-R (an actuarial instrument widely used for assessing risk of sexual reoffending) and considered the applicable dynamic risk factors. Ms Woodrow assessed the defendant as being in the "moderate-high" risk category relative to other male sex offenders. She stated that "[to] mitigate future risk, [the defendant] will require extensive community supervision and support to transfer the gains he has made in custody into the community". 50The second is a report prepared by Patrick Sheehan, senior forensic psychologist, dated 11 February 2014. Mr Sheehan also applied the STATIC 99-R, and considered applicable dynamic risk factors, notably difficulties with establishing enduring intimate interpersonal connections, the absence of social influences, and an inability to control expression of sexual impulses. Mr Sheehan expressed the opinion that the defendant's risk of sexually reoffending is estimated to be in the "moderate to low" risk category relative to other men who have sexually offended. Mr Sheehan noted that the ability of the defendant to independently manage his own risk in the absence of external control is untested. 51The third is a "Risk Management Report" prepared by officers of Community Corrections on 27 February 2014. This report addressed the extent to which the defendant can reasonably and practicably be managed in the community. It set out a risk management plan that includes reporting obligations, electronic monitoring, restrictions on employment, and the requirement that the defendant continue anti-libidinal therapy as required. 52The fourth is a report of Professor Greenberg dated 29 March 2014. Professor Greenberg reviewed the various psychiatric reports prepared since the defendant's arrest, and concluded that there was no evidence that the defendant suffers from a major psychiatric illness, antisocial personality disorder, or psychopathy. Professor Greenberg diagnosed the defendant with paraphilic disorder (that is, the experience of intense sexual arousal to atypical objects, situations or individuals) and noted evidence of social anxiety in the defendant's younger years. After applying the STATIC 99-R, and considering both static and dynamic risk factors with regard to the defendant, Professor Greenberg expressed the opinion that the current risk of the defendant committing a further sexual offence is best described as "low-moderate" relative to other sex offenders. Professor Greenberg emphasised the desirability of the defendant continuing to take anti-libidinal medication. 53As I have said, for well over a decade the defendant has been progressing well, both within prison and within the community. However, I consider that there are a number of causes for concern. 54The first is that the defendant leads a very isolated life. Apart from contact with his mother and her friends, he has very few social connections. That is understandable, in light of his reluctance to explain to new acquaintances where he has spent the past two decades, and why. It is also understandable in light of his desire to take his reintegration into the community very slowly and carefully. However, his isolation within the community means that he does not have an extensive social network that could assist him if things started to unravel. Nor are there are a number of people who are in close contact with him who could be relied upon to inform the authorities if that were to happen. 55Secondly, the defendant still, to my mind, has deep unresolved issues with regard to women. He is uncomfortable with them, and professes not to be able to understand them. 56Thirdly, the defendant continues to experience a degree of confusion about his sexuality. At the time of the offences the victims were, with one exception, girls and women. In prison he developed an intimate relationship with another male prisoner. After that relationship came to an end, he regarded himself as bisexual. On release he took a number of steps to involve himself in the gay and lesbian community. Recently he has come to view himself as heterosexual. Of course, the fact that a person may experience confusion with regard to their sexual identity is not of concern in itself; nevertheless, in the context under consideration, I consider that it is a factor that, in combination with others, gives rise to caution. 57Fourthly, shortly after release the applicant suffered some sort of personal crisis, referred to in the documentary evidence as a "breakdown". 58Fifthly, the applicant has proceeded very well for years whilst taking the anti-libidinal medication. His sex drive and function is markedly reduced, and, as I have said, he no longer derives gratification from the thought of sexual violence. Nevertheless, although the defendant has expressed no desire to do so, if he were to abruptly to stop taking that medication, I consider that there is a real risk of serious regression. 59Sixthly, with regard to many lesser periods in custody, a subsequent period of two years on parole living in the community would not be thought of as short. However, in light of the period of over two decades that the defendant spent in prison, I regard the period that has been served on parole as very short indeed. Aspects of the legislation 60Counsel for the defendant did not dispute that the defendant falls within the definition of a "supervised sex offender" contained in section 5I(2) of the Act, by way of the definitions of a "sex offender" in s 4 of the Act and a "serious sex offence" in s 5 of the Act. 61He also accepted that that the test for the orders sought with regard to the two psychiatrists is contained in s 7(4) of the Act. The effect of that test is that, if I am satisfied that the matters alleged in the supporting documentation provided by the plaintiff "would, if proved, justify the making of an extended supervision order", I must make the orders sought. 62Section 10A of the Act, which underpins the application for an interim supervision order, is in similar terms. It requires first that I be satisfied that the current supervision by way of parole of the defendant will expire before these proceedings are finally determined; I am well satisfied that that is the case. 63It is also to the effect that I may make an order for an interim supervision order if also satisfied, again, "that the matters alleged in the supporting documentation would, if proved, justify the making of a high risk sex offender extended supervision order". 64The parties were content for me to approach the test in s 7(4) and s 10A on the basis that it is analogous to the test applied by Magistrates at the end of committal hearings of indictable offences as to whether there is a prima facie prosecution case: see State of New South Wales v Manners [2008] NSWSC 1242 at [8]. 65In State of New South Wales v Thomas (Preliminary) [2011] NSWSC 118, R A Hulme J said at [11]: "The task of the Court at the preliminary hearing stage is not to weigh up the documentation, or predict the ultimate result, or to consider what evidence the defendant might call at the final hearing: Attorney General (New South Wales) v Tillman [2007] NSWCA 119. The test is one that is similar to the prima facie case test applied by magistrates in committal proceedings: Attorney General (NSW) v Hayter [[2007] NSWSC 983], above, at [6]: State of New South Wales v Manners [[2008] NSWSC 1242], above, at [8]." [Latter two citations inserted] 66Section 5B(1) of the Act provides that an offender can only be made the subject of a high risk sex offender supervision order if the offender is a "high risk sex offender". Section 5B(2) provides that a person is a "high risk sex offender" if the person is a "sex offender" (as defined in s 4 of the Act) and "the Supreme Court is 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." 67In short, the combined effect of s 5B, s 7(4), and s 10A of the Act calls for a consideration of whether or not there is a prima facie case that one can be satisfied to a high degree of probability that the defendant poses an unacceptable risk of committing a serious sex offence if he is not kept under supervision past the date of expiry of his sentence. 68Any such extended supervision order would be made pursuant to s 9 of the Act. Section 9(3) mandates consideration of a number of factors with regard to the making of such an order. To the extent that I am being called upon to make an assessment of whether or not there is a prima facie case for the making of an order pursuant to s 9(1), the parties agreed that I should consider, indirectly, all of the factors contained in s 9(3). 69Turning to discuss them very briefly, despite the commendable progress made by the defendant over many years, the number and nature of the offences he committed in 1989 and 1990 inevitably raise grave concern about the safety of the community. 70As for the various reports tendered in evidence, it is true that the medical professionals make a very positive assessment of the past progress and current prospects of the defendant. However, as one would expect, no one is in a position to rule out the possibility of further offences being committed. 71Nor does the statistical analysis of the risk of re-offending rule out such a possibility. 72The reports prepared by Corrective Services New South Wales showed that the defendant could be "reasonably and practicably" well managed in the community, and that has indeed occurred. 73The response of the defendant to the programs in which he has an opportunity to participate has been very positive. 74The same may be said about his compliance with parole, including with regard to the protection of children. 75The criminal history of the defendant reflects the offences that give rise to the application. 76I have reflected upon the views of the sentencing judge, and in particular the note of profound caution sounded by his Honour with regard to release on parole of the defendant. Determination 77I am amply satisfied that, on all of the evidence placed before me, a prima facie case has been demonstrated for the making of an extended supervision order. I consider it soundly established to the prima facie level that, at any final hearing, a judge of this Court could be satisfied to a high degree of probability that the defendant poses an unacceptable risk of committing a serious sex offence if he or she is not kept under supervision past the expiry of his sentence. 78It is not difficult to posit a combination of circumstances that could be very dangerous. For example, were this man to remain isolated in the community; were he to experience some sort of personal crisis, disruption or setback; and, most importantly, were he to stop taking his medication, I consider that there would be a real and unacceptable risk that the defendant could commit offences of sexual violence of the utmost seriousness. 79I am satisfied that the tests founded upon the combined operation of sections 7(4), 10A, and 5B of the Act are made out. I do not consider that there is any discretionary reason why I should not make the order founded upon s 10A of the Act. 80It is for those reasons that I consider it appropriate to make the orders sought by the plaintiff and consented to by counsel for the defendant, including the order directed towards the determination of the matter in this Court. 81Finally, proposed order five is directed towards ensuring that the progress and management of the defendant is not interrupted. Again, quite apart from the fact that the plaintiff proposed it and the defendant consents to it, I am satisfied of its appropriateness in all of the circumstances of this case. 82I make the following orders: (1)Pursuant to section 7(4) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 ("the Act"): (a)Dr Jeremy O'Dea and Dr Andrew Ellis are appointed to conduct separate psychiatric examinations of the defendant and to furnish reports to the Supreme Court with regard to the results of those examinations by 13 June 2014; and (b)The defendant is directed to attend those examinations. (2)Pursuant to section 10A of the Act, the defendant is subject to an interim supervision order from 15 May 2014 for a period of 28 days until 11 June 2014. (3)Pursuant to section 11 of the Act, the defendant is to comply with the conditions set out in the Schedule to this Order for the period referred to in order two. (4)The matter is listed before the Registrar on 5 June 2014 for referral to a judge of this Court for an application to extend the interim supervision order and further directions on that day. (5)Access to the Court file in respect of any document shall not be granted without the leave of a Judge of the Court. 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 be given the opportunity to be heard.