State of NSW v Guider (No 2) [2019] NSWSC 1145

State of NSW v Guider (No 2) [2019] NSWSC 1145

Although the defendant's past offending was extremely serious and an extended supervision order was plainly required, the plaintiff did not establish to a high degree of probability that the risk presented by the defendant could only be managed by further incarceration. Further imprisonment would not serve a rehabilitative purpose, the proposed extended supervision order was lengthy and highly restrictive, and all three experts considered that the defendant's risk could reasonably be managed in the community under a stringent regime. A five year extended supervision order was therefore appropriate rather than a continuing detention order.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Application Under the Crimes (high Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (nsw) for a Continuing Detention Order Or, Alternatively, an Extended Supervision Order / Final Hearing After an Interim Detention Order
Outcome
A five year extended supervision order was made; the continuing detention order sought as the primary order was not made.
Legal Topics
['extended Supervision Order' 'continuing Detention Order' 'unacceptable Risk' 'child Sexual Offending' 'community Safety' 'risk Assessment']
['high Risk Offenders' 'criminal Law' 'civil Supervision and Detention'] ['extended Supervision Order' 'continuing Detention Order' 'unacceptable Risk' 'child Sexual Offending' 'community Safety' '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

Application Under the Crimes (high Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (nsw) for a Continuing Detention Order Or, Alternatively, an Extended Supervision Order / Final Hearing After an Interim Detention Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff established that the defendant posed an unacceptable risk that could only be addressed by a continuing detention order rather than an extended supervision order.' "Whether a five year extended supervision order with stringent conditions was sufficient to manage the defendant's risk in the community." 'Whether further incarceration would serve any rehabilitative purpose.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the defendant's past offending was extremely serious and an extended supervision order was plainly required, the plaintiff did not establish to a high degree of probability that the risk presented by the defendant could only be managed by further incarceration. Further imprisonment would not serve a rehabilitative purpose, the proposed extended supervision order was lengthy and highly restrictive, and all three experts considered that the defendant's risk could reasonably be managed in the community under a stringent regime. A five year extended supervision order was therefore appropriate rather than a continuing detention order.

Court Disposition

A five year extended supervision order was made; the continuing detention order sought as the primary order was not made.

Orders

  • ['An order pursuant to ss 5B and 9(1)(a) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) that the Defendant, Michael Guider, be subject to an extended supervision order from 5 September 2019 for a period of five years.' 'An order pursuant to s 11 of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) directing the...