State of New South Wales v Schmidt (Preliminary) [2019] NSWSC 52

State of New South Wales v Schmidt (Preliminary) [2019] NSWSC 52

The defendant did not establish that circumstances had changed sufficiently to render the 2016 extended supervision order unnecessary. The risk factors identified when the order was made had not diminished sufficiently, and continuing issues including untreated relationship and hostility issues, substance abuse risk, mental health instability, emotional dysregulation, lack of adequate insight, and risk in intimate relationships meant the defendant still posed an unacceptable risk of committing a serious offence if not kept under supervision. Because the variation application failed on the same evidence, the preliminary hearing test for the State's s 7(4) application was satisfied.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Application Under the Crimes (high Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (nsw) Concerning an Extended Supervision Order / Reasons Confirming Orders Made After a S 13 Variation Application and a Preliminary Hearing Under S 7(4)
Outcome
The Court confirmed the orders made on 13 December 2018: the defendant's notice of motion was dismissed and the State's s 7(4) application was granted.
Legal Topics
['extended Supervision Order' 'variation or Revocation of Supervision Order' 'preliminary Hearing' 'serious Sex Offence' 'unacceptable Risk' 'risk Assessment']
['civil' 'criminal Law' 'high Risk Offenders'] ['extended Supervision Order' 'variation or Revocation of Supervision Order' 'preliminary Hearing' 'serious Sex Offence' 'unacceptable Risk' 'risk Assessment']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Civil Application Under the Crimes (high Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (nsw) Concerning an Extended Supervision Order / Reasons Confirming Orders Made After a S 13 Variation Application and a Preliminary Hearing Under S 7(4)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the 2016 extended supervision order should be varied, in substance revoked, under s 13 of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) by bringing forward its expiry date.' 'Whether circumstances had changed sufficiently to render the existing extended supervision order unnecessary.' 'Whether, at the preliminary hearing, the requirements for orders under s 7(4) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) were satisfied.']

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant did not establish that circumstances had changed sufficiently to render the 2016 extended supervision order unnecessary. The risk factors identified when the order was made had not diminished sufficiently, and continuing issues including untreated relationship and hostility issues, substance abuse risk, mental health instability, emotional dysregulation, lack of adequate insight, and risk in intimate relationships meant the defendant still posed an unacceptable risk of committing a serious offence if not kept under supervision. Because the variation application failed on the same evidence, the preliminary hearing test for the State's s 7(4) application was satisfied.

Court Disposition

The Court confirmed the orders made on 13 December 2018: the defendant's notice of motion was dismissed and the State's s 7(4) application was granted.

Orders

  • ['The Notice of Motion filed 25 May 2018 by Guillermo Marcelo Schmidt seeking to vary the extended supervision order made by Justice Button on 9 February 2016 in the State of New South Wales v Schmidt [2016] NSWSC 4, and entered the same date, is dismissed.' 'The application brought by the State of New South Wales...