State of New South Wales v Sutton [2017] NSWSC 787

State of New South Wales v Sutton [2017] NSWSC 787

Because the final hearing was listed for 30 June 2017, the day before the defendant's sentence expired, there was no present need for an interim supervision order before that hearing; any interim regime after the hearing would be better considered by the trial judge, who would have more information and before whom the accommodation dispute might be resolved by further evidence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Proceedings Under the Crimes (high Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (nsw) Involving an Application for an Interim Extended Supervision Order / Procedural Ruling After Preliminary Hearing and Before Final Hearing
Outcome
Determination of the terms of any interim supervision order reserved for determination by the trial judge; no substantive order made on 25 May 2017 other than confirming the final hearing listing.
Legal Topics
['interim Supervision Order' 'accommodation Conditions' 'appointment of Qualified Psychiatrists or Psychologists' 'final Hearing Listing']
['criminal Law' 'high Risk Offenders'] ['interim Supervision Order' 'accommodation Conditions' 'appointment of Qualified Psychiatrists or Psychologists' 'final Hearing Listing']

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

Proceedings Under the Crimes (high Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (nsw) Involving an Application for an Interim Extended Supervision Order / Procedural Ruling After Preliminary Hearing and Before Final Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court should determine the accommodation condition for any interim extended supervision order before the final hearing.' "Whether determination of any interim supervision order should be left to the trial judge in circumstances where the final hearing is listed before the defendant's sentence expires."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because the final hearing was listed for 30 June 2017, the day before the defendant's sentence expired, there was no present need for an interim supervision order before that hearing; any interim regime after the hearing would be better considered by the trial judge, who would have more information and before whom the accommodation dispute might be resolved by further evidence.

Court Disposition

Determination of the terms of any interim supervision order reserved for determination by the trial judge; no substantive order made on 25 May 2017 other than confirming the final hearing listing.

Orders

  • ['Final hearing confirmed for 30 June 2017.']