State of New South Wales v Bowdidge [2015] NSWSC 135

State of New South Wales v Bowdidge [2015] NSWSC 135

The Court was satisfied that the requirements for an interim supervision order under s 10A were met because the defendant was a supervised sex offender under an existing extended supervision order, the application was brought within time, and the supporting documentation, including his offending history, past non-compliance, clinical assessments and Dr Furst's evidence of high risk factors associated with paedophilic disorder and cessation of Androcur, would if proved justify the making of a high risk sex offender extended supervision order. The Court also found that supervision was required for community safety and that the proposed conditions were appropriate.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Application for Interim Supervision Order and Orders Appointing Experts Under the Crimes (high Risk Offenders) Act 2006 / Preliminary Hearing Under S 7(3)
Outcome
Interim supervision order made; expert examination and ancillary orders made.
Legal Topics
['interim Supervision Order' 'extended Supervision Order' 'high Risk Sex Offender' 'psychiatric and Psychological Examinations' 'risk of Re Offending']
['criminal Law' 'serious Sex Offender Supervision Orders'] ['interim Supervision Order' 'extended Supervision Order' 'high Risk Sex Offender' 'psychiatric and Psychological Examinations' 'risk of Re Offending']

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 Orders Appointing Experts Under the Crimes (high Risk Offenders) Act 2006 / Preliminary Hearing Under S 7(3)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendant satisfied threshold criteria as a supervised sex offender for an application under the Act.' 'Whether the supporting documentation would, if proved, justify the making of a high risk sex offender extended supervision order.' 'Whether an interim supervision order should be made under s 10A of the Act.' 'Whether two qualified psychiatrists should be appointed to examine the defendant and furnish reports to the Court.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was satisfied that the requirements for an interim supervision order under s 10A were met because the defendant was a supervised sex offender under an existing extended supervision order, the application was brought within time, and the supporting documentation, including his offending history, past non-compliance, clinical assessments and Dr Furst's evidence of high risk factors associated with paedophilic disorder and cessation of Androcur, would if proved justify the making of a high risk sex offender extended supervision order. The Court also found that supervision was required for community safety and that the proposed conditions were appropriate.

Court Disposition

Interim supervision order made; expert examination and ancillary orders made.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to section 7(4) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006, the Court appoints Dr Bruce Westmore and Dr Katie Seidler to conduct separate psychiatric and psychological examinations, respectively, of the defendant and to furnish report to the Supreme Court on the results of those examinations by 14 May...