Accommodation Condition
97Mr De La Torre's counsel submits that the Court ought impose a condition in the following terms, in addition to all other of the suggested conditions:
9(a) The Departmental Supervising Officer is not to refuse approval for any accommodation proposed by the Defendant, by reason only that any such accommodation has shared kitchen, bathroom, or common room areas.
98Mr De La Torre's counsel submitted that given that his client has a limited income, and was keen to live in independent accommodation, an aim approved of by Corrective Services NSW, that many places of accommodation within the affordable price range would have a shared kitchen, bathroom or a common recreation area.
99Mr De La Torre drew attention to a number of entries in the Case Notes which he submitted indicated that Corrective Services NSW had an intractable policy not to approve of accommodation where there was a shared kitchen, bathroom or a common recreation area.
100According to the Case Note reports, on 6 August 2011, as a consequence of a phone call with a staff member, Mr Simon Gray, the following is recorded:
"Offender states the property he is proposing has a communal bathroom - advised offender he would not be able to live in a property with a communal bathroom as CCMG need to be able to manage a risk. Explained CCMG would not be able to manage this risk appropriately as it was impossible to determine who would have access to a communal bathroom and there is a duty of care to both the offender, other residents and visitors to the property."
101On 14 August 2011, in a further Case Note of a review discussion, the following note is to be found:
"Discussed his restrictions on accommodation. Roy is finding it difficult to find suitable accommodation with the restrictions of the 500 metre rule in communal living. He stated he had looked through almost 80 properties in the last fortnight. At this point ASW interrupted and reminded Roy that he had been informed numerous times by staff that exemptions can be applied for and that this had been confirmed by CCMG.
102On 31 August 2011, a further entry is contained to this effect:
"Also discussed accommodation and the difficulty in finding suitable properties. Advised CCMG realised the difficulties in obtaining suitable accommodation but it would not be approved for him to live in a property with shared bathrooms etc with members of the public. Advised he would need to continue searching and CCMG would only be able to consider properties on a case by case basis."
103As well, the Case Notes contained numerous references to difficulties that Mr De La Torre had in finding suitable accommodation. Of interest, most of the difficulties seemed to be associated with the geographical location of the accommodation in relation to the presence of schools, childcare centres or other like places, where it might be expected that children would gather.
104I am satisfied from reading all of the Case Note reports that considerable care and attention is being paid by the relevant CCMG staff to obtaining suitable accommodation for Mr De La Torre, or else approving suitable accommodation found by Mr De La Torre for himself.
105I am reluctant, by the making of a specific condition of the kind that Mr De La Torre seeks, to interfere with what may be a general policy, which is soundly based. Accordingly, I will not impose the condition sought.
106However, it is appropriate that I record these remarks. What seems to me to be relevant is that the accommodation in which Mr De La Torre is to live, is a place which enables him to comfortably comply with all of the conditions imposed with his extended supervision order. It is obviously in his interests that he be accommodated independently of Nunyara and to live in the community. There seems to be no disagreement about this.
107However, I do note that when Mr De La Torre travels to work or, with approval, to other places of social recreation, that it is essential at those places that he shares toilets, recreational areas, and at his work place, a kitchen or kitchenette with others. The CCMG has no control over who might be in those places at any given time.
108Indeed, as counsel for Mr De La Torre submitted, he is entitled to use public toilets as he travels to and from work and his place of residence.
109In other words, it is not possible for Mr De La Torre to live, work and socialise in the community without, from time to time, accessing communal facilities such as bathrooms, kitchens and recreation rooms.
110What seems to me to be important is not the fact of those rooms being communal, but rather who it is likely Mr De La Torre will encounter when he uses those rooms.
111Having regard to that likelihood, I have no doubt that some communal accommodation, to use a shorthand term, would be entirely acceptable, whereas others might not be.
112In short, I will not impose the condition requested, but I do express my view that if such a rule exists, then it ought not be inflexibly applied.