State of New South Wales v Hampton [2018] NSWSC 360

State of New South Wales v Hampton [2018] NSWSC 360

The supporting documentation, even if proved, would not justify the making of an extended supervision order because it did not establish to a high degree of probability that the Defendant posed an unacceptable risk of committing another serious offence if not kept under supervision. The Court accepted the Defendant's submissions, found no recent pattern of serious violent offending, noted improved general behaviour and cooperation, and was not persuaded by the expert and risk management reports or the incomplete recent parole material.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Interim Supervision Order and Extended Supervision Order Under the Crimes (high Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (nsw) / Preliminary Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['extended Supervision Order' 'interim Supervision Order' 'unacceptable Risk' 'serious Violence Offences' 'preliminary Hearing']
['criminal Law' 'high Risk Offenders'] ['extended Supervision Order' 'interim Supervision Order' 'unacceptable Risk' 'serious Violence Offences' 'preliminary Hearing']

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

Application for Interim Supervision Order and Extended Supervision Order Under the Crimes (high Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (nsw) / Preliminary Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the matters alleged in the supporting documentation would, if proved, justify the making of an extended supervision order.' 'Whether the Court could be satisfied to a high degree of probability that the Defendant poses an unacceptable risk of committing another serious offence if not kept under supervision.' 'Whether an interim supervision order and orders for psychiatric or psychological examinations should be made.']

Ratio Decidendi

The supporting documentation, even if proved, would not justify the making of an extended supervision order because it did not establish to a high degree of probability that the Defendant posed an unacceptable risk of committing another serious offence if not kept under supervision. The Court accepted the Defendant's submissions, found no recent pattern of serious violent offending, noted improved general behaviour and cooperation, and was not persuaded by the expert and risk management reports or the incomplete recent parole material.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The summons is dismissed.' "The Plaintiff is to pay the Defendant's costs."]