State of New South Wales v Keech (Final)

1. [1]

   Pursuant to a summons filed on 31 January 2024, the plaintiff, the State of New South Wales, seeks orders against the defendant, Christian Paul Keech, under the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) (“the Act”).

2. [2]

   The plaintiff’s application for preliminary orders has already been determined. On 2 May 2024, Yehia J made preliminary orders and an interim supervision order (“ISO”) (State of NSW v Keech [2024] NSWSC 408).

3. [3]

   As part of the ISO, her Honour imposed a number of conditions sought by the plaintiff, although not all. The defendant has previously been subject to an extended supervision order (“ESO”) for a period of 5 years commencing 15 December 2015 (see State of NSW v Keech [2015] NSWSC 1898).

4. [4]

   Unfortunately, the defendant has been convicted of breaching that ESO on a number of occasions. He is currently in custody, bail having been refused, in respect of an alleged breach of the ISO said to have occurred on 6 July 2024. He has entered a plea of guilty to that offence and is due to be sentenced on 25 September 2024. In the circumstances, unless there is a further application for bail, the defendant will remain in custody until at least 25 September 2024.

5. [5]

   The defendant is subject to the regime imposed by the Act as he has been convicted of a number of offences which would satisfy the meaning of “a serious sex offence” under the Act, including:

   1. (1)

      one count of aggravated indecent assault with the victim being under the age of 16, contrary to s 61M of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) (offending on 25 November 2007);

   2. (2)

      a further three counts of aggravated indecent assault, the victim being under the age of 16 (offending on 4, 11, 17 December 2009); and

   3. (3)

      a further count of indecent assault, the person being under the age of 16 (offending on 5 and 19 April 2012).

6. [6]

   Since being released from custody and first being subject to an ESO in 2015, the defendant has not committed any further serious sex offences. His offending is limited to breaching the conditions of the ESO.

7. [7]

   The defendant did not oppose the imposition of an ISO and does not oppose the imposition of an ESO. However, I must still be independently satisfied that an ESO should be imposed and satisfied of the conditions and terms of that ESO.

8. [8]

   There is a dispute between the parties as to the conditions which should be imposed. The plaintiff maintains that some of the conditions which were not imposed as part of the ISO nevertheless should be imposed as part of the ESO. The defendant disputes this.

9. [9]

   Prior to the final hearing, and in accordance with the preliminary orders, the defendant was examined by Dr Sathish Dayalan, who prepared reports dated 24 July 2024 and 5 August 2024, and Dr Katie Seidler, who prepared a report dated 25 July 2024 and 1 August 2024. Dr Dayalan and Dr Seidler gave evidence concurrently on the final hearing.

10. [10]

    The parties also relied on a number of affidavits as follows:

    1. (1)

       affidavit of Nicholas McArdle affirmed 30 January 2024;

    2. (2)

       affidavit of Jessie Slattery-McDonald affirmed 28 March 2024;

    3. (3)

       affidavit of Jessie Slattery-McDonald affirmed 31 July 2024;

    4. (4)

       affidavit of Nicholas McArdle affirmed 15 August 2024;

    5. (5)

       affidavit of Joseph Harding affirmed 22 March 2024; and

    6. (6)

       affidavit of Tracy Reynolds affirmed 2 April 2024.

11. [11]

    Exhibited to the affidavit of Mr McArdle affirmed 30 January 2024 is a large bundle of documents including risk assessment reports, treatment reports, case notes from the NSW Department of Corrective Services and records relating to the defendant’s offending.

12. [12]

    The parties also relied on a joint statement of agreed facts.

13. [13]

    During the hearing of the matter, Mr Dalla-Pozza appeared for the plaintiff and Ms Kennedy appeared for the defendant. I received helpful written and oral submissions from both parties.

14. [14]

    The focus of the hearing was on the conditions which would be imposed, although I must be satisfied to a high degree of probability that the defendant poses an unacceptable risk of committing another serious offence if not kept under an ESO prior to considering the conditions which should be imposed.

Legislative scheme

1. [15]

   As set out in s 3 of the Act, the primary object of the Act is to provide for the extended supervision and continuing detention of high risk sex offenders and high risk violent offenders, so as to ensure the safety and the protection of the community. Another object of the Act is to encourage high risk sex offenders and high risk violent offenders to undertake rehabilitation. In making any orders under the Act, I must have regard to the objects of the Act.

2. [16]

   Section 5B of the Act specifies the circumstances in which the Court may make an ESO:

3. [17]

   Being satisfied to a high degree of probability means something beyond “more probable than not”. The existence of the risk, that is, the likelihood of the defendant committing a further serious sex offence, does have to be proved to a higher degree than the normal civil standard of proof although not to the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt (Cornwall v Attorney General for New South Wales [2007] NSWCA 374 at [21] per Mason P, Giles and Hodgson JJA).

4. [18]

   The meaning of “unacceptable risk” was considered in Lynn v State of New South Wales (2016) 91 NSWLR 636 at [50]–[51] per Beazley P (“Lynn”):

5. [19]

   Importantly, the impact that an ESO may have on the defendant’s liberty is not a relevant consideration for the purposes of assessing whether the defendant poses an unacceptable risk of committing another serious offence if not kept under supervision, but the Court may take that factor into account in determining whether to exercise its discretion pursuant to s 9 of the Act (Lynn at [44], [56]–[58] per Beazley P, [126]–[128] per Basten JA and [148] per Gleeson JA.

6. [20]

   Section 9(2) of the Act requires that in determining whether or not to make an ESO, the safety of the community must be the paramount consideration of the Court.

7. [21]

   Further, in determining whether or not to make an ESO, I must have regard to the factors set out in s 9(3) of the Act.

Threshold requirements

1. [22]

   The defendant accepts that the threshold requirements set out in ss 5B(a), (b) and (c) of the Act are satisfied.

2. [23]

   The defendant is a person who was serving a sentence for a serious offence and is a supervised offender within the meaning of s 5I of the Act. Further, an application was made in accordance with s 5I.

3. [24]

   For the reasons set out in this judgment, I am satisfied to a high degree of probability that the defendant poses an unacceptable risk of committing another serious offence if not kept under the supervision of an ESO and s 5B(d) of the Act is thus also satisfied.

4. [25]

   Having regard to the focus of the issues between the parties, it is not necessary that I merely recite all of the evidence presented on the final hearing. I have considered all of the evidence and have regard to the factors set out in s 9(3) of the Act.

Defendant’s personal circumstances

1. [26]

   The defendant’s personal circumstances are set out in the agreed facts as well as many of the documents including medical reports and case notes.

2. [27]

   The defendant is 48 years old. He is subject to an ISO although he is currently in custody. He is also subject to a community corrections order (“CCO”) which will expire on 18 December 2026. He has been in custody since 25 July 2024 and is charged with failing to comply with the conditions of the ISO contrary to s 12 of the Act. He was subject to the previous ESO but the ESO has been suspended on a number of occasions due to his return to custody. Because of that, the ESO only expired on 12 March 2024.

3. [28]

   The defendant is the eldest of three children. He was born in Mudgee in New South Wales. From an early age he experienced significant physical, emotional, developmental and behavioural problems which required specialist intervention. He was given hormonal supplements in early adolescence in order to facilitate delayed puberty. He was bullied in school and in due course would experience rejection from sexual partners and feelings of sexual inadequacy which have persisted throughout his life. This has led to him associating emotionally with young children who he felt were more appealing.

4. [29]

   At 13 he turned to drugs, in particular marijuana. His drug use escalated in his late teens when he commenced using amphetamines and other drugs such as hallucinogens. In his early 20s he began using heroin, but that ceased after a friend overdosed. He married at the age of 24 and had 2 children but the marriage only lasted 3 years. He admits being abusive to his wife and continuing to sexually offend during the marriage.

5. [30]

   The defendant has a long history of sex offences, not all of which would constitute serious sex offences within the meaning of the Act. The offending commenced in 2000 and has included:

   1. (1)

      conviction on 3 counts of using a carriage service in an offensive manner relating to leaving sexually explicit messages and threats of rape on the answering machines of 3 teenage girls;

   2. (2)

      committing acts of indecency and inciting persons to commit acts of indecency contrary to s 61N(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) (September – November 2000);

   3. (3)

      failing to comply with reporting obligations under the Child Protection Register which included failing to report a change of address and loitering in a public park, which included a playground, and at a library (May 2003); and

   4. (4)

      peeping over a public toilet cubicle (18 May 2005).

6. [31]

   In 2007, the defendant commenced the offending conduct which constitutes “serious sex offences” under the Act.

7. [32]

   On 25 November 2007, he approached a 12-year-old girl and felt her buttocks and then followed her around the shopping mall. He was arrested and charged with aggravated and indecent assault of a person under the age of 16 contrary to s 61M(1) of the Crimes Act.

8. [33]

   On 4 December 2009, he approached a 15-year-old girl who was dressed in a school uniform and touched her buttocks. On 11 December 2009, he approached a 13-year-old girl and touched her on the buttocks. He was again charged with assault of a person under the age of 16. He was convicted and sentenced to cumulative terms amounting to three years imprisonment.

9. [34]

   On 5 April 2012, whilst on parole, he approached a 15-year-old girl who was shopping with her mother and lightly squeezed her buttocks. He again brushed up against her. On 19 April 2012, he followed the same victim. He was arrested on that day, charged and subsequently convicted again of indecent assault contrary to s 61M(2) of the Crimes Act. He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 16 months commencing 4 May 2014 and concluding on 3 September 2015, with a non-parole period of 10 months, concluding 3 March 2015.

10. [35]

    On 10 December 2015, Hulme J imposed an ESO for a period of 5 years. He has, since being released from prison in respect of the serious sex offending, breached his ESO a total of 15 times on 7 different occasions. The first two breaches involved the use of drugs. Other breaches involved maintaining contact with convicted sex offenders. He has been found with pornography on his phone and messages in which he and a person known to him shared sexual fantasies about his 5-year-old niece.

11. [36]

    On 3 November 2023, he approached 2 children aged 18 months and 3 years old playing in the common area of his unit complex. He was convicted and sentenced to a CCO which is due to expire on 18 December 2026.

12. [37]

    Finally, it is alleged that on 25 July 2024 he knowingly had contact with a convicted sex offender contrary to condition 24 of his ISO. On 6 August 2024, he entered a plea of guilty and the matter is listed for sentence on 25 September 2024.

13. [38]

    Since 2000, the defendant has engaged in various types of sexual offending, involving young children and teenage girls. The offending is as I have described. It has involved approaching them, talking to them, making sexualised comments to them and in some cases grabbing their buttocks.

14. [39]

    All of his offending has occurred in public places. There is no suggestion that he has ever perpetrated violence or engaged in higher level offending such as sexual intercourse without consent. That is not to in any way minimise his offending, but it is important to understand the nature of his offending when considering what conditions might be imposed.

15. [40]

    Further, he has also shown himself incapable of complying with the conditions of his existing ESO/ISO. In particular, he has been unable to refrain from placing himself in positions where young children are or having contact with other convicted sex offenders.

16. [41]

    The defendant lives in rental accommodation in the Central Coast. He receives a disability support pension. He is receiving that pension on the basis that he suffers from anxiety and depression.

Expert medical reports

1. [42]

   In accordance with the preliminary orders made by Yehia J, the defendant has been examined by Dr Sathish Dayalan, a forensic psychiatrist, and Dr Katie Seidler, a clinical and forensic psychiatrist. Their opinions are generally similar.

2. [43]

   The history obtained by the doctors is consistent with the history I have outlined.

3. [44]

   The defendant reported that in more recent times, and prior to being arrested, he spent most of his time playing games on his phone. He was often bored. He admitted that from about the age of 14, he engaged in conduct such as making demands of females through letters and phone conversations for sex and that he had been touching females sexually in public places and on public transport.

4. [45]

   He denied any intent to rape anyone and denied any intent to carry out any threats. He acknowledged voyeuristic tendencies from the age of 23. He acknowledged that from time to time he had experienced sexual urges to touch a female and acted on that impulse. He also confirmed that he had not committed any offending since 2013, suggesting that he had been put on medication (depot) whilst in gaol and that there had also been a shift in his attitude towards sexual offending.

5. [46]

   He admitted that he initially did not want to be on an ISO and that he had struggled to adhere to the schedule of conditions. He disputed any diagnosis of paedophilia and did not have an adequate understanding of his psychiatric condition. He was willing to engage in further treatment.

6. [47]

   According to both experts, the defendant suffers from paedophilia (non-exclusive type) and is sexually attracted to children as per the criterion in DSM-5. There is some support for the diagnosis of exhibitionism, voyeurism, frotteurism, and fetishism. Dr Dayalan considers his growth and sexual development has been adversely affected by hormone deficiency in childhood. Dr Dayalan also considers that the defendant suffers from an antisocial personality disorder. On the STATIC-99R instrument, the defendant scored 8 (Dr Dayalan) and 7 (Dr Seidler) out of 10 in terms of risk factors which placed him well above the average risk level.

7. [48]

   Similarly, the dynamic risk factors relevant to the defendant’s risk formulation were significant, resulting in a high loading of static and dynamic risk factors associated with sexual recidivism. Dr Dayalan considered that the defendant does pose a risk of committing a further serious sex offence. Further, lack of supervision in the community would increase the risk of non-compliance with treatment, relapse into use of substances and association with other sex offenders, increasing the risk of him committing a further serious offence.

8. [49]

   Dr Seidler came to somewhat similar conclusions. Dr Seidler suggested that the evidence is overwhelmingly clear that the defendant is a persistent and deviant sexual offender who has a problematic and enduring sexual interest in teenage girls and frotteurism. For much of his life since adolescence he has demonstrated little ability to manage his sexual arousal and behaviour and this has led to repeated offending, sanction, treatment and control.

9. [50]

   However, Dr Seidler considered there had been some positive change in recent years. This is primarily a function of maturity in addition to consistent treatment with anti-libidinal medication. The reduction in sex drive has allowed the defendant to better utilise offence focused treatment such that he has been able to develop and, more importantly, utilise management strategies.

10. [51]

    According to Dr Seidler, the defendant's history indicates that he has various deviant interests, and he has offended in diverse ways including offending in ways that are both contact and non-contact in nature. The most likely victim of any future sexual offence is an adolescent girl who is a stranger to him. A less likely scenario is that he may sexually abuse a young female child or another female. Sexual deviancy has been chronic for him. He previously suffered from a substance use disorder.

11. [52]

    Both the experts support the imposition of an ESO. According to both, the defendant’s risk factors are well above average.

12. [53]

    A similar conclusion is reached in the risk assessment report completed by Gillian Tulloh, a senior psychologist, and Kate Harle, an acting chief psychologist. They conclude that the defendant’s risk of sexual reoffending is well above average relative to other men who have offended sexually. He should be subject to intensive supervision, strict monitoring and case management by Corrective Services NSW, which would include ongoing psychological treatment, restriction in social contacts, monitoring, supervision wearing electric monitoring and receiving anti-libidinal medication.

Conclusion on unacceptable risk

1. [54]

   In addition to the evidence to which I have referred, I have had regard to all the other extensive evidence made available, including evidence relating to his earlier offending, sentencing and psychological assessments.

2. [55]

   Having regard to all of the evidence, I am satisfied to a high degree of probability, that the defendant poses an unacceptable risk of committing another serious offence if he is not kept under supervision under an ESO. As I have indicated, the prerequisites for the making of an ESO are satisfied in terms of the threshold questions and the finding of unacceptable risk. However, I still have a discretion as to whether to make the ESO. Having regard to the risk level in this matter, I am satisfied that I should exercise my discretion and make the orders for an ESO.

The conditions

1. [56]

   The parties have come to substantial agreement on the conditions which should be imposed but some remain in dispute. The plaintiff presses some of the conditions which were rejected by Yehia J when making the orders for an ISO. The plaintiff does not press other conditions.

2. [57]

   I am generally satisfied that the conditions are appropriate for the purposes of addressing the defendant’s risk factors and informing the defendant what he needs to do to comply with the conditions as well as assisting in providing support to the defendant in terms of direction and supervision that would reduce his risk factors.

3. [58]

   The conditions which I impose are attached to this judgment.

4. [59]

   I will now deal only with the disputed conditions.

Conditions 5, 6 and 7

1. [60]

   The plaintiff seeks conditions to the effect that, if directed, the defendant must provide a weekly plan (called a schedule of movements) which must be provided three days before the week is due to commence. Further, if the defendant wants to change anything he must notify the Departmental Supervising Officer (“DSO”) about the change 24 hours in advance and he must not deviate from his approved schedule of movements except in an emergency.

2. [61]

   The defendant opposes these conditions. Yehia J declined to impose the conditions in the ISO. Neither Dr Dayalan nor Dr Seidler support the need for such conditions. Dr Dayalan suggested that the imposition of such conditions might be counterproductive. Despite counsel for the plaintiff putting a series of alternative assumptions, Dr Dayalan did not alter his view, continuing to suggest that the imposition of such conditions could be more harmful rather than significantly reducing the risk of re-offending. It was put to Dr Dayalan that those responsible should have a discretion to impose a schedule of movements in the future should it be required. He agreed that if such a discretion was used judiciously it may be appropriate but said there was always a concern that it might be used in circumstances in which it may not be warranted.

3. [62]

   Dr Seidler adopted a similar view, suggesting that, in general terms, scheduling movements does not do anything to reduce the risk of a serious sex offence. Dr Seidler considered that a schedule of movements might reduce the risk of a further breach offence, suggesting that perhaps providing structure around the defendant might help him reduce the risk of breaching existing orders.

4. [63]

   However, Dr Seidler emphasised that there was no inherent value to a schedule of movements in terms of reducing the risk of further sexual offending.

5. [64]

   It is important that the defendant not be set up to fail. Plainly, he has problems complying with existing orders in some respects. Imposing a schedule of movements might increase the risk of further breach, albeit according to the experts, it does not have any effect in terms of reducing the risk of further sexual offending.

6. [65]

   His earlier sexual offending has been opportunistic. It has not been dependent on where he might be at any particular time. There is no evidence that he tends to seek out particular persons or any evidence that he acts violently.

7. [66]

   I do not consider that a schedule of movements and associated conditions should be imposed.

Conditions 11 and 12

1. [67]

   The plaintiff seeks conditions that the defendant must not spend the night anywhere other than his approved address or alternative approved addresses and must promptly notify the DSO of any visitor entering or remaining at his approved address. The plaintiff submits that these conditions facilitate monitoring of the defendant’s intended movements in advance and give the DSO advance notice so that any risk assessments can be concluded prior to him residing at another address or inviting someone home.

2. [68]

   Again, Dr Dayalan and Dr Seidler do not fully support the imposition of such conditions, mainly for the reason that all of the offending occurred in public places rather than in the home. There is no earlier incidence of the defendant inviting children home or forcing them to come with him. His offending is not associated with violence. Further, Dr Dayalan was concerned that imposing such conditions might again increase the risk of a breach of the conditions and a return to incarceration, such that it would not be helpful for his rehabilitation.

3. [69]

   In addition, imposing such restrictions might impair his ability to develop more social supports. If he is not able to go to a person's place or have someone over without approval, it would increase his difficulty in making friends. Dr Seidler emphasised that the best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour and the defendant has never committed an offence by having someone over to his house or going to someone else’s house. Dr Seidler did not accept that the behaviour that is sought to be controlled by conditions 11 and 12 could be related to his offending behaviour.

4. [70]

   In my view, the conditions do not assist in reducing risk and should not be imposed.

Condition 16

1. [71]

   The plaintiff seeks a condition prohibiting the defendant from attending any place used solely or mainly for the sale or display of sexually explicit material or providing sexual services or sexually explicit entertainment without the prior approval of the DSO. This condition was imposed as part of the ISO.

2. [72]

   Dr Seidler suggests that this condition was of questionable utility in terms of risk management of the defendant, there being no evidence of any prior offending that relates to either his use of sexual services or accessing material on the internet. Dr Seidler felt that it was a long bow to suggest that the use of such services increased the risk of sexual offending. Dr Seidler also agreed that in circumstances in which the services are legal there is a risk that, in restricting access for such a person, that might increase the risk of someone such as the defendant turning to other activities, that is some form of sexual offending.

3. [73]

   As such, the restriction might increase rather than reduce the risk.

4. [74]

   Similarly, Dr Dayalan did not support the imposition of the preclusion but suggested that it would be useful to have some sort of monitoring so as to determine what services he was accessing. The plaintiff then adopted an altered condition to the effect that the defendant must notify a DSO prior to attending any place used solely or mainly for the sale or display of sexually explicit material or providing sexual services or sexually explicit entertainment.

5. [75]

   I remain uncertain as to how that condition would work in practice. If the defendant was not required to seek approval, then he could not be subject to a breach order if he went without approval. On the other hand, if he is required to notify that he was going, seemingly without seeking approval, then he could be subject to a breach if he went without notifying.

6. [76]

   In the end, I accept the defendant's submission that the evidence does not rise to a level sufficient to justify the imposition of the condition.

Conditions 17 and 18

1. [77]

   The plaintiff seeks conditions to the effect that the defendant must not start any job, work or educational course without the prior approval of a DSO and must notify a DSO of any intention to change his employment, if practical, before the change occurs. I raised with the parties the qualification of the condition “if it is practicable to do so”. In my view, the defendant should be permitted to obtain work and start work as and when he is able to do so and the requirement of notifying a DSO in advance should not be an impediment to that. However, it would be important that a DSO be aware of where he is working. Condition 17 should be amended so that it reads as follows:

2. [78]

   Subject to that qualification, conditions 17 and 18 will be included.

Condition 23

1. [79]

   The parties have put forward differently worded non-association conditions. The reason for this is really to ensure that the defendant would not be accidentally in breach of the order through some form of necessary contact. An example was given of the defendant purchasing something at the supermarket and having contact with a child in doing so. The second reason for the difference in the wording is that the defendant submits that the wording of this condition allows him to make appropriate decisions in advance and notify a DSO of those decisions.

2. [80]

   Again, it is important to emphasise that none of the earlier offending has been committed against children known to him. As I said, it is opportunistic. The imposition of a condition other than as proposed by the defendant would not serve to reduce the risk and again increases the risk of the defendant being unable to comply. The condition proposed by the defendant should be included.

Condition 28

1. [81]

   The plaintiff seeks to impose a condition requiring the defendant to obtain written permission from a DSO prior to joining or affiliating with any club or organisation. The plaintiff submits that this will permit monitoring of potential settings which may give rise to high-risk scenarios.

2. [82]

   At first impression, this may be an unnecessary condition. However, it seems unlikely that the defendant will ever be joining a club without intending or planning to do so. I accept the plaintiff's submission that such a condition would permit monitoring of potential settings which may give rise to high-risk scenarios. The condition is not onerous. I doubt that it could be said that it is setting the defendant up to fail. It is a condition which will serve to reduce the risk of reoffending. In the circumstances, I impose condition 28.

Condition 34

1. [83]

   The plaintiff seeks a condition that the defendant not use any encoded or encrypted messaging application or service. The plaintiff wishes to monitor the defendant’s access to the Internet and other electronic communication. I accept that monitoring of the use of such applications may assist the DSO in assessing the defendant’s risk and undertaking proper risk management but, having regard to applications such as WhatsApp which is an encrypted messaging application, I consider it unduly onerous to impose a blanket preclusion on the use of such an application. Condition 34 will read:

Condition 36

1. [84]

   Condition 36 proposed by the plaintiff is in similar terms. Again, it is not a preclusion on the defendant joining social networking services or applications, but merely requiring the defendant to provide prior notice to a DSO. I agree it should be imposed.

Condition 39

1. [85]

   The plaintiff seeks a condition requiring the defendant to provide consent for his telephone provider and internet service provider to share information about his accounts with a DSO. I do not understand how that could reduce the risks. It will not be included.

Condition 42

1. [86]

   The plaintiff seeks to preclude the defendant from accessing any form of pornography. Dr Dayalan and Dr Seidler do not support the imposition of such a condition. It places a restriction on the defendant accessing legal material and material which is generally available to other members of the community. Further, there is no evidence linking his prior offending with him accessing such material on the Internet. The need for conditions must be evidence-based. In my view, there is no evidence justifying the imposition of condition 42 and it will not be included.

Condition 44

1. [87]

   The plaintiff seeks an order precluding the defendant from significantly changing his appearance without the prior approval of the DSO. Again, the plaintiff says this ensures general monitoring of the defendant. The defendant seeks a variation of the condition so that it reads:

2. [88]

   I understand why the plaintiff may wish to know about any significant change in appearance as part of the monitoring and enforcement process which the plaintiff must undertake. However, again, the proposition that the defendant cannot change his appearance in any meaningful way without prior approval is really setting the defendant up to fail. Further, there is no evidence that this is something that the defendant has ever done in the past as if to avoid detection, or as part of some elaborate plan. For example, if the defendant wishes to grow a beard, he should not be required to notify a DSO in advance of not shaving for a while. However, he should be required to notify a DSO that it is happening. The condition suggested by the defendant will be imposed.

Condition 51

1. [89]

   The plaintiff seeks a condition requiring the defendant to agree to share with his treatment and service providers and healthcare practitioners all information regarding his earlier sexual offending.

2. [90]

   I do not agree that the defendant should be required to do so. In any event, the parties reached agreement as to the wording of the condition, the effect of which is to limit the obligation to those practitioners who are treating the defendant with respect to his sexual offending.

3. [91]

   Condition 51 will now read:

Orders

1. [92]

   I make the following orders.

   1. (1)

      An order pursuant to ss 5B and 9(1)(a) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) that the defendant be subject to an extended supervision order (“the extended supervision order”) for a period of three years.

   2. (2)

      An order pursuant to s 11 of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) directing the defendant, for the period of the extended supervision order, to comply with the conditions set out in the schedule attached hereto.

   3. (3)

      Access to the Court’s file in respect of any document shall not be granted to a non-party without the leave of a Judge of the Court and, if any application for access is made by a non-party in respect of any document, the parties are to be notified by the Registrar so as to allow them an opportunity to be heard in relation to the application for access.

   4. (4)

      An order pursuant to s 13(1) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) that the interim supervision order made on 21 July 2024 be revoked.