The State of New South Wales v David Moses Kokkotas

Present circumstances

1. The defendant resides with his mother at rental accommodation and receives a disability support pension. His only social contacts other than support staff are his mother and sisters and their families. He appears to have no friends. Each of his sisters live in Sydney. He is close to one of them, whose two children he regularly walks to school. His relationship with his mother appears distant.
2. The defendant sees Mr Baird, a psychologist with the Forensic Psychological Service (FPS), generally on a weekly basis and a private psychologist on a fortnightly basis. In addition, he is engaged with the Community Mental Health Team at St George Hospital, under the care of a psychiatrist, whom he sees every two months. He generally sees his Case Manager weekly. He also participates in social activities run at Buckingham House, although he is reported to have formed an "inappropriate attachment" to a female gym instructor there.
3. The defendant takes antipsychotic and mood stabilizing medication, together with anti-libidinal and anti-depressant medication. He is subject to electronic monitoring and required to submit schedules of his movements on a weekly basis. He is also subject to a nightly curfew.

The statutory criteria

1. Section 9(3) lists the matters which the Court must take into account when considering extended supervision orders.

Section 9(3)(a) - safety of the community

1. The experts agree that the defendant constitutes a moderate-high risk of sexually reoffending and this will likely reflect the salient points of the index offence, involving intimidation and physical injury. The Court is obliged to make its own finding as to this issue by the exercise of such judgment as it can bring to bear. The conclusion of the experts conforms with my own view of this question.

Section 9(3)(b) - reports from court-appointed professionals

1. Pursuant to the order of Button J referred to above, reports were prepared and tendered from Dr Andrew Ellis and Dr Katie Seidler. Set out below is a summary of the histories they obtained. I then briefly summarise their conclusions.
2. At the time of the interviews, the defendant was a single 30 year old man with no dependants. He is an Australian citizen with a Philippine background. He had been living with his mother in a rental unit since July 2012. He receives a disability pension for mental illness and worked as a volunteer on a weekly basis performing basic office duties at a mental health support service. He was on various forms of medication.
3. The defendant told the doctors he began drinking alcohol at or around the age of 18, and described himself as an alcoholic prior to entering into custody. He spent most of his money on alcohol and commenced drinking each morning. He denied having any addictions to illicit substances, prescription medication or solvent inhalants. He was and is a heavy smoker.
4. The defendant has had one intimate relationship in his life when he was 18 years old, with a 56 year-old man, which lasted about two years. There are inconsistencies regarding the defendant's memory in relation to keeping in contact with his partner whilst in custody. Prior to his offences, he reported attending gay beats for casual sex and said his only sexual experience with a woman prior to his offences was in a brothel. He told Dr Ellis there had been no contact with his ex-partner since he entered custody, although he told Dr Seidler that he resumed the relationship after being in custody for several years. It is clear that the defendant was released to his partner's address. He says he is presently heterosexual in orientation.
5. The defendant described an incident to both doctors where he alleged that he was sexually assaulted when he was in high school. He said that an older man offered him a cigarette whilst on Cronulla Beach. After he had smoked the cigarette the man engaged in non-consensual penetrative anal intercourse with the defendant. He said to Dr Ellis that he only recently remembered this episode, and had not spoken about it to anyone at the time.
6. Dr Andrew Ellis concluded that the defendant's behaviour satisfied the diagnosis of schizophrenia, stating - He presents with symptoms of auditory hallucinations and delusions that have been present over the past eight years. He has disorganised speech, avolition for productive behaviour and diminished emotional expression. These symptoms are attenuated but not resolved fully by treatment.
7. Dr Ellis also noted that the defendant also meets the general criteria for Substance Use Disorder, but that he is in remission and in a controlled environment, which has been demonstrated by "salient use".
8. Although there was a possibility that the defendant might be suffering from dissociative identity disorder ('DID')" which is also known as "multiple personality disorder" (a controversial diagnosis), his presentation was not consistent with the literature. He thought the defendant's problems with memory are consistent with his low levels of intelligence and "ordinary forgetting" and his account of different "personalities" is more in line with "auditory hallucinations of schizophrenia".
9. According to the STATIC 99 instrument for the assessment of risk, Dr Ellis found the defendant, in the absence of any treatment, "would fall into a group of persons with a risk for serious sexual offending that is statistically moderately high in frequency with serious consequence, and greater than a theoretical average offender". He noted however that the risk of re-offending would decrease if specific treatment were made available.
10. Perhaps the most problematic part of Dr Ellis' report is his noting that the defendant - "reported ongoing attenuated sexual images of pain and suffering with women or children as a target. He described masturbating at times to these fantasies. He has reported sadistic fantasies more prominently in the year before offending in a prior review. His offence has elements of sexual arousal due to fear and suffering." However, a diagnosis of sexual sadism is difficult to make on one offence although it should be further investigated. He thought that "when schizophrenic symptoms are more prominent, deviant sexual arousal is less inhibited".
11. The relevant risk factors appeared to be: most prominently, deviant sexual arousal; schizophrenia, leading to a disinhibition of behaviour and impulsivity, diminishing when the illness is well-treated; anti-social personality (with borderline and schizoid traits); and alcohol use.
12. Dr Ellis recommended that the defendant be monitored in relation to his treatment and progress for a period of two years.
13. For her part, Dr Seidler stated that the defendant's case is complex. He had been diagnosed by different professionals with various conditions including Schizophrenia, Dissociative Identity Disorder, Major Depression, Personality Disorder and Substance Abuse. He had demonstrated some vague psychotic symptoms but, otherwise, she thought he did "not currently meet criteria for any particular diagnostic condition", adding - In sum then, [the defendant] is best described as an odd individual, who lacks many of the core skills necessary for independence and adequate self-regulation. His personality functioning is compromised, his mood is low, his coping skills are inadequate and his thought processes are generally disturbed. He has found a way to make sense of and describe his experiences, which suggests mental illness and according to any criteria, [the defendant] is not functioning normally or adequately.
14. On the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence - 2nd ed, the defendant functioned in the borderline range of intelligence with performance below 98 per cent of his peers, thus "can be expected to be impulsive, have difficulties self-regulating or comprehending and utilising abstract or complex information".
15. The defendant reported a history of sexual arousal to fantasies of forceful sex and thought about this whilst masturbating. He was still aroused by the offence. He has sexual thoughts of children at times and reported most often viewing pornography depicting violent and forceful sex. Dr Seidler used the STATIC 99R instrument for assessing risk. The defendant's score of four gave him a risk of 1.89, meaning "he is almost two times more likely to reoffend than the 'typical' sex offender". The Risk for Sexual Violence Protocol demonstrated that the defendant represented a "moderate-high risk of re-offence". Overall, she considered that the defendant poses a moderate to moderate-high risk of re-offending, with the most salient risks pertaining to his deviant and sadistic sexual interests, his inconsistent application of risk management principles and his continued social isolation and lack of appropriate or fulfilling intimate relationships with others … together with ongoing mental health concerns and his binge alcohol use.
16. The risk assessment is tempered by his current medication and treatment. Also, the defendant seems to be committed to services and wishes to continue to seek help to allow him to live safely in the community. That the defendant had not reoffended since his release is a positive sign but he had not established anything other than superficial community participation and, apart from attending necessary appointments and participating in mental health related activities, "does very little with his time except play video games".

Section 9(3)(c) - assessments of other psychiatrists, psychologists as to the likelihood of reoffending

1. Ms Laura Ball, registered forensic psychologist provided a report of July 2014. This does not differ significantly from the reports of the Court appointed experts and there is no need to set out its details here.

Section 9(3)(d) - Statistical analysis I have already mentioned the STATIC 99R actuarial measure of the risk of sexual re-offending. This has been in existence for some time and is widely used in a number of jurisdictions. However, it must be applied with some caution since it reflects statistical probability and cannot discriminate between those in a particular risk group who do or do not reoffend. It is not sensitive to changes in an offender's circumstances, a factor of particular importance here since the offender has spent two years in the community without reoffending. Dynamic risk factors must also be considered. The rate of sexual recidivism of persons in the moderate-high risk category with the same score as the defendant is between 11.4% and 25.2% over five years and 22.6% and 35.5% over ten years. Ultimately, the overall clinical picture involving psychometric assessment, psychiatric consultations, amongst other examinations, must be considered.

Section 9(3)(d1) - management in the community

1. The report of 27 August 2014 prepared by Ms Saane Taumalolo (Unit Leader ESO (Extended Supervision Order) Team contained a treatment plan, which is reflected in the proposed conditions for the extended supervision order. Since there is agreement on most of these, it is unnecessary to deal with them in detail. They are much the same as those conventionally imposed and seem to me to be reasonable and appropriate. This matter is discussed further below.

Section 9(3)(e) - treatment and rehabilitation programmes

1. The defendant has had problems remaining drug-free whilst in custody. From the Offender Integrated Management System ('OIMS') records, he went through periods of being dishevelled and unkempt, and unusually sleepy (likely at least in part a reaction to various medications). He was anti-social and had difficulty mixing with inmates. (I note that Ms A Dawson's Pre-Release Report of 20 April 2011 contains a useful overview of the defendant's time in custody but it does not add significant information to the other material to which I refer and, in light of the issues, need not be discussed).
2. The defendant undertook alcohol and drug courses whilst in custody. For about fifteen months ending in May 2012, he undertook the Custody Based Intensive Treatment program ("CUBIT"), a full time custodial sex offender treatment program indicated for moderate to high risk sex offenders. A treatment report prepared by Marie Rubio, Specialist Psychologist, CUBIT is in evidence. In summary: the defendant was in treatment for longer than is standard (usually between 6 to 10 months) due to "profoundly poor social and communication skills", requiring "constant repetition and explanation of terms and issues"; despite his "withdrawn nature and serious lack of social skills, by the end of treatment, [the defendant] demonstrated confidence and maturity to gain a fundamental understanding of the treatment components"; however, his lack of social and interpersonal skills remained an obstacle to positive progress; and it was recommended that the defendant should participate in the community-based maintenance program at the Forensic Psychology Service (FPS) when he was released into the community. Ms Rubio assessed the defendant's overall risk rating as "moderate high".
3. When released, the defendant participated in the FPS maintenance program, comprising one-on-one counselling and some group participation. In July 2014, the defendant told Ms O'Neill that Mr Baird, his PFS psychologist, was one of the most important people in his life.
4. The defendant has willingly participated in those programs and, it is accepted, has tried his best given his degree of cognitive function and mental health concerns. These latter factors continue to limit the benefits of treatment. The fact, however, that he has not committed any offences whilst at liberty strongly indicates to my mind that treatment is significant and supervision is a worthwhile undertaking in his case. I do not accept the defendant's submission that treatment is of limited protective value.

Section 9(3)(f) - conduct whilst under supervision

1. After the defendant was released to parole he lived first with his ex-partner for several months, then with his sister for a short period and then with his mother, with whom he presently resides. He sees his ex-partner sporadically. On 17 August 2012, the defendant commenced maintenance treatment with the FPS, which involved some group work but mainly one-on-one sessions with a psychologist.
2. On 24 August 2013, the defendant was admitted voluntarily to hospital following a suicide attempt with an overdose of prescription medication. The Discharge Notes record that the purpose of the admission was "suicidal thoughts secondary to distress over thoughts of harming others". The clinical notes show that he suffered chronic auditory hallucinations and "bad thoughts" about harming others. The defendant was discharged on 10 September 2014, having become an involuntary patient after an angry outburst where he broke a window.
3. In July 2014, the Extended Supervision Order Team (ESO Team) commenced supervising the defendant. The ESO Team provides intensive supervision and monitoring of high risk violent and high risk sex offenders in the community, including parolees and offenders subject to extended supervision orders. On 2 September 2015, the State Parole Authority varied the defendant's parole conditions to require him to wear an electronic monitor.
4. The OIMS and FPS notes in evidence record, inter alia, the following issues whilst the defendant was at liberty: he attended brothels on a number of occasions and consistently expressed the desire to do so; he admitted on a number of occasions to having violent or inappropriate sexual fantasies about women; since June 2014, he admitted to having inappropriate sexual thoughts about children on a number of occasions whilst he masturbates; has used alcohol on a number of occasions in the period from August 2012 to May 2014; reported experiencing violent outbursts on a number of occasions; and reported developing inappropriate attachments to women on a few occasions.
5. On 11 December 2014, the defendant told an employee within the ESO Team that he had underground parking at his residence and all he had to do was get a knife and wait for a lady to come along if he wanted to commit an offence. It seems likely that the defendant was attempting to convey that, despite opportunities for him to reoffend, he did not do so. He breached his conditions at about midnight on 19 January 2015 when he went to a public toilet to meet his ex-partner despite an express direction not to do so. He was detected by his electronic monitor as being at a public toilet for about an hour and inquiries were immediately made as to his intentions. In addition, on 11 February 2015, the defendant was detected entering a hotel at Kogarah. He admitted to gambling there for an hour, but denied drinking alcohol.

Section 9(3)(h) - the defendant's criminal history

1. A copy of the defendant's criminal history is in evidence which reveals he has no convictions other than those relating to the incident on 21 October 2006.

Section 9(3)(h1) - views of the sentencing court The sentencing judge found that the offence of aggravated sexual intercourse without consent fell within the "middle range of objective seriousness". His Honour observed that "alcohol consumption may have been a problem" in the offence and also noted the complex mental history with which he presented, referring to the report of Dr Bruce Westmore, who considered that the defendant suffered from long term depression and probably a psychotic illness and was probably intellectually compromised. Dr Westmore found he had a psycho-sexual disorder of having sexual fantasies which were predominantly of a violent and sadistic type which had become an obsession and present for two years prior to the offences. He concluded that the defendant's "serious psychiatric problems" were complicated by his psycho-sexual disturbance, alcohol abuse and "significant personality dysfunction." The sentencing judge found that at the time of the offences, the defendant was suffering depression and some form of psychotic illness but that these did not contribute in any significant way to the offending. His Honour accepted Dr Westmore's opinion that the defendant would require extended psychiatric care in custody and when he was released. Although the prospects of rehabilitation were difficult to assess, his Honour was prepared to accept that his prospects of rehabilitation were reasonable if the defendant received appropriate supervision and assistance. His Honour concluded that the defendant would "clearly benefit from a very lengthy period of supervision … [which] will also assist to maintain strategies to assist in his rehabilitation generally".

Proposed conditions

1. Aside from the usual conditions as to which there is no issue, the parties are at odds concerning the need for electronic monitoring, whether the defendant should be permitted to use the services of sex workers and his access to pornography. Pursuant to s.11, the Court may order such conditions as it considers "appropriate". In doing so, it is necessary, of course, to bear in mind the identified risk issues, the nature of putative future offending, given that breach of a condition will be a criminal offence, the need to be satisfied of the practical and substantial desirability for imposing the condition, and avoid conditions that are unjustifiably onerous or punitive.
2. I deal first with the issue of electronic monitoring. It is submitted for the plaintiff that the defendant should simply be required to wear electronic monitoring equipment as directed by the Department Supervising Officer. On behalf of the defendant, it was submitted that he should not need to wear this equipment at all. The plaintiff submitted that electronic monitoring was necessary due to the circumstances which indicated a heightened degree of risk apparent to the officers when the defendant socially disengages from time to time, for example, by failing to attend to attend his regular maintenance sessions and being difficult to contact. As mentioned previously, on one occasion on 19 January 2015, he left his premises at about midnight to meet his ex-partner, despite a current direction not to do so. Although the incident passed without any problem, the need for the monitor was demonstrated because of the defendant's inconsistent attitude to compliance. The disadvantage of monitoring the defendant in terms of his own sense of responsibility is outweighed by the risks he represents at this stage. It is proposed to review the position every six months. Counsel for the defendant, pointed out that the defendant had been monitored since September 2014, with no review occurring so there must be a doubt that the proposal for regular review was practically effective. Moreover, the defendant had been at liberty in the community for over two years and had not been subject to such monitoring. If he failed to attend an appointment with his support team, this would be sufficient to trigger enquiry about possible disengagement. Requiring the defendant to wear a monitor might cause him to be less candid with Mr Baird. In relation to the incident of 19 January 2015, his counsel conceded that the defendant contravened a direction given to him but said (fairly, as I think) that the defendant simply wanted to see his former partner to discuss whether there was any prospect of renewing their relationship and plainly did not intend to commit any offence. As a fall-back position, it was submitted that monthly reviews be conducted if electronic monitoring is to continue.
3. I have concluded that, on balance, electronic monitoring is desirable, not only for security but also to reinforce the defendant's desire not to reoffend. But I agree it should be subject to genuine review, transparently undertaken. I have imposed a condition that reflects this conclusion.
4. Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the defendant should not have any access to sex workers or to legal brothels, pointing to the evidence that he has had consistent fantasies of harming women the entire time that he has been at liberty and under supervision. These fantasies give rise to the concern in relation to the defendant attending brothels because there is no way of monitoring the defendant's conduct once inside. Counsel also submitted that there is no guarantee of the safety of the brothel worker in the company of the defendant, a man who has acted violently in the past. Although Dr Ellis recommended that brothels and sex shows be avoided as "there is a history of reported arousal to sexual violence and arousal during a violent offence", Dr Seidler did not see any benefit in prohibiting attendance at brothels or employing sex workers, as these were not directly related to the risk of re-offending.
5. Counsel for the defendant pointed out that a brothel is a structured environment where there are security guards and other staff. Whilst the defendant was on parole, he attended brothels on many occasions with no suggestion of any issues. At this time the defendant was not required to provide written schedules as to his movements each week but disclosed the brothel visits to his treating psychologist as part of his therapy.
6. It seems to me that it is unnecessary to prohibit the applicant from visiting brothels to engage the services of sex workers there. These environments are far removed from that in which the offences were committed. Furthermore, these establishments have arrangements for dealing with the risks of inappropriate behaviour by customers which, I think, can be relied on to ensure the safety of those workers who deal with the defendant. Accordingly, I have removed the condition dealing with brothels. However, he is not to use the services of sex workers otherwise.
7. The plaintiff also opposed variation of the term relating to internet pornography and submitted that the defendant's access to pornography should be limited solely to hard copy pornography or pornography contained on a video or DVD, which could then be monitored. There was discussion as to how otherwise the defendant would be able to obtain pornography as he is currently prohibited from attending sex shops and adult bookstores. Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that this prohibition is appropriate as attending these stores might provoke his "deviant sexual desires". Counsel said that the defendant could ask a family member to obtain pornography or get it sent to him in the post. It was also agreed that the defendant could obtain such material at most newsagents.
8. Counsel for the defendant submitted in response that adult book stores are legal and appropriate places for the defendant to acquire the material. He conceded that such stores might contain sadomasochistic material but, if the defendant purchased it, he would be in breach of the supervision conditions, which would become clear when his house is inspected, which could occur at any time. Counsel also contended that it is appropriate for the defendant to be able to access pornography via the internet. He said the defendant is hoping to transition to no supervision in the future and that there should be a degree of flexibility to enable him to learn how to access appropriate pornographic material.
9. This is very much a balancing exercise. In my view it is unnecessary to prohibit the defendant from visiting sex shops or adult bookstores or obtaining pornography other than of a sadomasochistic character. However, he should not have access to internet pornography. The terms reflect these determinations.

Conclusion

1. The Court orders: 1. Pursuant to s. 5C(1) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006, the defendant be subject to a high risk sex offender extended supervision order ("the extended supervision order") for a period of two years from the date of the order. 2. Pursuant to section 11 of that Act, the defendant is directed, for the period of the extended supervision order, to comply with the conditions set out in the filed Schedule attached to this judgment, for the period referred to in order one.

Monitoring and Reporting The defendant must accept the supervision of Corrective Services NSW until the end of the Order. The defendant must report to the Department Supervising Officer or any other person the Departmental Supervising Officer directs him to report to. The defendant must follow all directions by his Department Supervising Officer or any other person supervising him. Within 3 days of the date of this order, the defendant must attend the police station nearest to his approved accommodation and provide the police a copy of this order.

Electronic Monitoring The defendant must wear electronic monitoring equipment as directed by the Department Supervising Officer or any other person supervising him. Where the Department Supervising Officer directs the defendant to wear electronic monitoring equipment: 1. the Unit Leader must review that requirement on a monthly basis and for the purposes of that review must set out in writing in a formal case management review what matters were considered and what risk factors, if any, were identified as warranting electronic monitoring. Where it is found that electronic monitoring is not warranted, the Unit Leader is to apply to the Assistant Commissioner for consent to remove the electronic monitoring requirement, and the Assistant Commissioner must respond as soon as reasonably possible and must not unreasonably refuse such consent. 2. the defendant must not tamper with or remove such equipment

Schedule of Movements If the defendant is asked to by the Department Supervising Officer, he must provide a written weekly plan (called a "Schedule of Movements") to the Department Supervising Officer and this is to be provided 3 days before it is due to start. If the defendant wants to change anything in his Schedule of Movements after he has given it to his Department Supervising Officer, he must tell his Department Supervising Officer about the change 24 hours in advance, unless the Department Supervising Officer approves a shorter period. The defendant must follow his Schedule of Movements except in an emergency. The defendant must truthfully answer questions from his Department Supervising Officer, or any other person supervising him, about where he is, where he is going and what he is doing.

Accommodation The defendant must live at an address approved by his Department Supervising Officer. The defendant must be at his approved address between 9.00pm and 6.00am unless other arrangements are approved by his Department Supervising Officer. The defendant must allow his Department Supervising Officer or any other person supervising him to visit him at his approved address at any time. The defendant must not spend the night anywhere other than his approved address without the prior approval of his Department Supervising Officer.

Restrictions on movements The defendant must not leave New South Wales without the approval of the Commissioner of Corrective Services NSW. The defendant must hand over his passports to the Commissioner of Corrective Services NSW. The defendant must not apply for a passport without the approval of the Commissioner of Corrective Services NSW. The defendant must not go to a place if his Department Supervising Officer tells him he cannot go there. The defendant must not go to schools, libraries, amusement parlours, amusement parks and theme parks unless: 1. he has prior written approval of his Department Supervising Officer; or 2. he is with someone who has been approved by the Department Supervising Officer. The defendant must not attend any topless bars, strip parlours or massage parlours.

Employment, Education and Finance If the defendant is unemployed, the defendant must try to find employment and enter available employment if and as directed by the Department Supervising Officer or make himself available for employment, education, training or participation in a personal development program as directed by the Department Supervising Officer. The defendant must not start any job, volunteer work or educational course without the approval of his Department Supervising Officer. The defendant must not sign any document that gives the defendant control of any money or assets of another person or organisation, without prior approval of the Department Supervising Officer. The defendant must not sign any lease, mortgage, contract for sale for goods or services above the value of $500, hire agreement, power of attorney, deed, or any instrument relating to obtaining any credit, opening of any account held at a bank, credit union, building society or similar institution, without prior approval of the Department Supervising Officer. The defendant must not form any corporation, partnership, unincorporated association or register any business names without prior approval of the Department Supervising Officer.

Drugs and Alcohol The defendant must not buy, possess or use alcohol or illegal drugs. The defendant must not possess or use prescription medication other than as prescribed. The defendant must submit to testing for drugs and alcohol as directed by his Department Supervising Officer. The defendant must not enter any premises that sell alcohol without the prior approval of his Department Supervising Officer. The defendant must attend and participate in programmes and courses for drug and alcohol rehabilitation as directed by his Department Supervising Officer, and must not discharge himself from such programs and courses without prior approval of his Department Supervising Officer.

Associations with People The defendant must not associate with people, including children, who his Department Supervising Officer tells him not to associate with. The defendant must not engage the services of sex workers except in brothels. If the defendant starts a sexual relationship or a friendship with someone, he has to tell his Department Supervising Officer who may need to tell the person about the defendant's criminal history. The defendant must obtain written permission from the Department Supervising Officer prior to joining any club or organisation, including any internet or mobile based social networking service.

Gambling The defendant must not gamble. The defendant must seek assistance in controlling his gambling, if directed by the Department Supervising Officer.

Weapons The defendant must not carry any guns or knives.

Access to the Internet & Telecommunications Devices The defendant must give his Department Supervising Officer a list of all devices he uses to communicate with or to access the internet. This includes phones, tablet devices, data storage devices or computers. This includes the details of telephone numbers, service provider account numbers, email addresses or other user names used by the defendant and the nature and details of the internet connection, as directed. The defendant must obey any directions by his Department Supervising Officer about the use of phones, computers and other devices, including any directions relating to his access to the internet. The defendant must allow his telephone and/or internet service provider to share information about his accounts with his Department Supervising Officer.

Search and Seizure If the Department Supervising Officer reasonably believes that a search (of the type referred to in sub-paragraphs (d) to (g) below) is necessary: 1. for the safety and welfare of residents or persons present at the defendant's approved address; 2. to monitor the defendant's compliance with this order; or 3. because the Department Supervising Officer reasonably suspects the defendant of behaviour or conduct associated with an increased risk of the defendant committing a serious offence; then the Department Supervising Officer may direct, and the defendant must submit to search and inspection of: 1. any part of the defendant's approved address and anything in it; 2. of any part of any vehicle owned, hired by or under the control of the defendant and anything in it; 3. any part of a storage facility, including a garage, locker or commercial facility owned, hired by or under the control of the defendant and anything in it; and/or 4. search and examination of the defendant himself. For the purposes of condition 41(g) above: 1. a search of the defendant himself means a garment search or a pat-down search. 2. to the extent practicable a pat-down search will be conducted by a Department Supervising Officer of the same sex as the defendant, or by a staff member of Correctives Services NSW of the same sex as the defendant under the direction of the Department 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. During a search carried under condition 41 above, the defendant must allow the Department Supervising Officer to seize anything found in, whether in the defendant's possession or not, which the Department Supervising Officer reasonably suspects will compromise: 1. the safety of residents at the defendant's approved address; 2. the welfare or safety of any member of the public or any other person; or 3. the defendant's compliance with this order; or which the Department Supervising Officer reasonably suspects relates to behaviour or conduct associated with an increased risk of the defendant committing a serious offence. The defendant must allow the Department Supervising Officer, staff of Corrective Services NSW and the police to search any phone, tablet device, data storage device or computer that he may use. The defendant must not attempt to destroy or interfere with any object that is the subject of a search or seizure, carried out in a search under conditions 41 to 44 above.

Access to Pornographic, Violent and Classified Material The defendant must not buy or view any pornography on the internet. The defendant may only buy, possess or view pornography in the form of magazines, DVDs or videos and the content of that pornography must not: 1. involve non-consensual sexual activity, violence, torture, or people who appear to be under 18 years old; or 2. have a "Refused Classification" classification.

Personal Details and Appearance The defendant must not change his name from David Moses Kokkotas or use any other name without the approval of his Departmental Supervising Officer. The defendant must not change his appearance without the approval of his Departmental Supervising Officer. The defendant must let his Departmental Supervising Officer photograph him. If the defendant changes the details of any current form of identification or obtains further forms of identification, he must provide the Departmental Supervising Officer with such details.

Medical Intervention and Disclosure The defendant must notify his Departmental Supervising Officer of the identity and address of any healthcare practitioner that he consults. The defendant must attend all psychological and psychiatric assessments and treatment that his Departmental Supervising Officer tells him to attend. The defendant must take all medications that are prescribed to him by his healthcare practitioners. If the defendant deliberately ceases to take medication that has been prescribed, either on a temporary or permanent basis, the defendant is to notify his Departmental Supervising Officer within 24 hours of ceasing to take the medication. The defendant must agree to his healthcare practitioners sharing information including reports on his progress and information he has told them with each other and with his Departmental Supervising Officer. The defendant must agree to any information being shared between those agencies that are involved in his supervision including, but not limited to, his Departmental Supervising Officer, staff of Corrective Services NSW and the police. 5^ Note: Conditions 3, 53 and 54 do not require the defendant to participate in treatment or take medication without his informed consent. 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: 29 April 2015