State of New South Wales v AA [2020] NSWSC 692

State of New South Wales v AA [2020] NSWSC 692

Although AA conceded that an extended supervision order was justified, community supervision was not sufficient to manage the high risk he posed. His entrenched substance dependence, recent and limited abstinence, antisocial personality traits, poor history of compliance with supervision, poor institutional history,...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Application for a Continuing Detention Order Or, Alternatively, an Extended Supervision Order Under the Crimes (high Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (nsw) / Principal Judgment After Hearing; Reasons for Orders Made on 21 May 2020
Outcome
Continuing detention order made for 12 months from 21 May 2020; warrant ordered for committal to a correctional centre for that period.
Legal Topics
['continuing Detention Order' 'extended Supervision Order' 'serious Sexual Offending' 'risk of Reoffending' 'community Supervision' 'violent Offending' 'substance Abuse' 'violent Offender Therapeutic Programme']
['criminal Law' 'high Risk Offenders' 'sentencing and Post Sentence Detention'] ['continuing Detention Order' 'extended Supervision Order' 'serious Sexual Offending' 'risk of Reoffending' 'community Supervision' 'violent Offending' 'substance Abuse' 'violent Offender Therapeutic Programme']

Source-derived case record

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

Application for a Continuing Detention Order Or, Alternatively, an Extended Supervision Order Under the Crimes (high Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (nsw) / Principal Judgment After Hearing; Reasons for Orders Made on 21 May 2020

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether AA posed an unacceptable risk to the community if not kept in detention.' 'Whether close supervision in the community under an extended supervision order was adequate to manage the risk posed by AA.' 'Whether a continuing detention order was necessary to allow AA to complete the Violent Offender Therapeutic Programme and reduce risk before release.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although AA conceded that an extended supervision order was justified, community supervision was not sufficient to manage the high risk he posed. His entrenched substance dependence, recent and limited abstinence, antisocial personality traits, poor history of compliance with supervision, poor institutional history, limited insight, serious risk of sexual and violent reoffending, lack of adult community experience, and the limitations of supervision meant that only detention would adequately protect the community. Further detention would also allow him to complete the Violent Offender Therapeutic Programme and become eligible for intensive outreach treatment on release.

Court Disposition

Continuing detention order made for 12 months from 21 May 2020; warrant ordered for committal to a correctional centre for that period.

Orders

  • ['Order that, pursuant to ss. 5C and 17(1)(b) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 AA be the subject of a continuing detention order for a period of 12 months from 21 May 2020.' 'Order that, pursuant to s. 20(1) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006, a warrant be issued for the committal of AA to a...