State of New South Wales v Kamm (Final)

1. [1]

   HIS HONOUR: By its amended summons filed on 1 October 2015, the State of New South Wales seeks final orders pursuant to the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006. Mr Kamm is currently on parole. Any decision about these orders must be made before 12 January 2016.

Background

1. [2]

   Mr Kamm is a 65 year old male with a history of sexual offending against under-age females. He established a religious community at Cambewarra, near Nowra, which became known as “The Order of Saint Charbel”. Mr Kamm claimed to have received visions or visitations from the Virgin Mary.

2. [3]

   Mr Kamm was and is known as the “Little Pebble”. He described himself as a visionary who had been told by God or the Virgin Mary that he was to be the last Pope. He claimed to be able to communicate regularly with the Virgin Mary, and would write down what she said and pass these messages on to followers. Mr Kamm also prophesied that there would be a new holy era when he would have 12 queens and 72 princesses, who would assist in bringing forth his children in an immaculate race. The 12 queens and 72 princesses would be chosen by the Virgin Mary. The 12 queens would bear his children. The 72 princesses would be able to marry others but would also bear his children if they wished. The children produced by the queens and princesses would be the product of Mr Kamm's "mystical seed".

3. [4]

   In 2005 Mr Kamm described the Order as extending to many countries and having over 500,000 devotees, who either reside in communities or are auxiliary members.

4. [5]

   At the commencement of these proceedings, Mr Kamm was serving a sentence of imprisonment following his conviction in 2007 for five counts of sexual intercourse with a child above the age of 10 years and under the age of 16 years, in circumstances of aggravation, contrary to s 66C(2) of the Crimes Act 1900, and a further count of committing an act of indecency towards the victim, again in circumstances of aggravation under s 66O(1). The aggravating circumstance was that the victim was under Mr Kamm’s authority at the time. He committed the offences in 1994 and 1995. The victim was then aged 14 or 15 years old. Mr Kamm was sentenced to a total effective sentence of 10 years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 7½ years.

5. [6]

   In 2005 Mr Kamm was also convicted of sexual offences against another under-age girl (who was 15 years of age) on one count of aggravated sexual intercourse under s 66C(2), and four counts of aggravated indecent assault under s 61M(1). Mr Kamm committed the offences in 1993. He was sentenced to a total effective sentence of 5½ years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 3½ years

6. [7]

   Each victim had resided in Mr Kamm’s religious community at Cambewarra.

7. [8]

   While in custody, Mr Kamm undertook the Custody-Based Intensive Treatment (CUBIT) program for sex offenders with incomplete success: he is identified as having continuing treatment needs. He was released on parole on 14 November 2014. Since then, Mr Kamm has resided with his partner, who he married in December 2014, at a unit in Sydney. Mr Kamm’s sentence of imprisonment expired on 13 October 2015.

8. [9]

   In a recent psychiatric report, Dr Andrew Ellis assessed Mr Kamm as having a paraphilic disorder (provisional) centred upon deviant sexual arousal. Dr Ellis described the disorder as being a chronic, relapsing condition that is resistant to treatment and rehabilitative efforts. Mr Kamm is also identified as having a co-morbid Narcissistic Personality Disorder, which has an impact upon on his treatment and supervision response. In a psychological risk assessment report dated 7 September 2015, Dr Christopher Lennings opined that "there is a high likelihood of further serious sexual offending should Mr Kamm be released into the community without supervision."

9. [10]

   Mr Kamm continues to present himself as the “Little Pebble” and to preach his unorthodox religious views via the Littlepebble.org website. He says he continues to receive visions. He also continues to have contact with members of his religious order, and states that he receives gifts from his followers. In August 2015 Mr Kamm told a supervising officer that the Order of Saint Charbel now has 50,000 followers who meet every week in prayer groups all over the world.

10. [11]

    On 13 October 2015 R S Hulme J made an order under s 7(4) of the Act appointing Dr Jeremy O'Dea, psychiatrist, and Mr Patrick Sheehan, psychologist, to conduct separate examinations of Mr Kamm and prepare expert reports for the Court: State of New South Wales v Kamm [2015] NSWSC 1492. His Honour also made an interim supervision order under s 10A of the Act, to commence from 13 October 2015.

11. [12]

    On 6 November 2015 Schmidt J made an order under s 10C(2) of the Act renewing the interim supervision order until 5 December 2015. On 2 December 2015 Adamson J made an order further renewing the interim supervision order until 6:00pm on 15 December 2015. I ordered at the final hearing that, pending my decision, the interim supervision order be further renewed until 12 January 2016.

Evidence

1. [13]

   In support of the present application, the State relies upon the following affidavits:

2. [14]

   Exhibited to the second affidavit of Mr Thomson are four folders of tabulated documents entitled "Exhibit BT-1", comprising the State’s tender bundle in these proceedings.

3. [15]

   In addition, the State relies upon the reports of the two court-appointed experts. Dr O'Dea’s report is dated 3 December 2015. Mr Sheehan’s report is dated 15 November 2015.

Threshold requirements

1. [16]

   The Act sets out certain threshold criteria for the making of an application for an extended supervision order (“ESO”) under the Act: s 5I. The State may apply to the Supreme Court for an ESO for a high risk sex offender only where:

2. [17]

   The expression "serious sex offence" is defined by s 5(1) of the Act to include an offence under Division 10 of Part 3 of the Crimes Act where, in the case of an offence against an adult or a child, the offence is punishable by imprisonment for 7 years or more.

3. [18]

   At the time of the commencement of these proceedings, Mr Kamm was serving two concurrent sentences of imprisonment for the offence of sexual intercourse with a child above the age of 10 years and under the age of 16 years, in circumstances of aggravation, contrary to s 66C(2) of the Crimes Act, being an offence under Division 10 of Part 3 of the Crimes Act. At the relevant time, the offence carried a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment. The offence therefore qualifies as a "serious sex offence" within the meaning of ss 5(1) and 6 of the Act.

4. [19]

   The offence also qualifies as an "offence of a sexual nature". In this respect, s 5(2)(a) of the Act defines an "offence of a sexual nature" to include an offence under Division 10 of Part 3 of the Crimes Act.

5. [20]

   Further, Mr Kamm is a "sex offender" as defined in s 4 of the Act, and referred to in s 5I, because he is a person over the age of 18 years who has been sentenced to imprisonment following his conviction for a serious sex offence.

6. [21]

   Mr Kamm’s sentence for the offences of sexual intercourse with a child above the age of 10 years and under the age of 16 years expired on 13 October 2015. The application for an ESO was filed before that date, and within the six month period permitted by the Act.

Relevant statutory provisions and applicable principles

1. [22]

   The primary object of this 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 protection of the community. Another object of this Act is to encourage high risk sex offenders and high risk violent offenders to undertake rehabilitation.

2. [23]

   Subsection 5C(1) provides that on an application being made under the Act, the Supreme Court may make an order for the supervision of an offender if the offender is a "high risk sex offender". Subsection 5B(2) provides that an offender is a "high risk sex offender" if the offender is a sex offender and the Supreme Court is satisfied to a high degree of probability that the offender poses an unacceptable risk of committing a serious sex offence if he or she is not kept under supervision.

3. [24]

   Section 9 applies to an application for an ESO. Under s 9(1) a court that has received an application for an ESO has two options available to it: either to make an extended supervision order or to dismiss the application. Subsection 9(3) sets out a list of matters to which the Court must have regard in determining whether or not to make an ESO in addition to any other matter the court considers relevant.

4. [25]

   The phrase "satisfied to a high degree of probability" constitutes the statutory standard of proof enlivening the Court's jurisdiction to grant an ESO. It is higher than the civil standard but lower than the criminal standard. Prior to the commencement of the Crimes (Serious Sex Offenders) Amendment Act 2013, the phrase "satisfied to a high degree of probability" appeared in s 9(2), as part of the test to be met for the grant of an ESO under s 9(1)(a).

5. [26]

   In State of New South Wales v Fisk [2013] NSWSC 364 Beech-Jones J observed at [22] that the structure of the Act in its current form (which now accommodates the making of orders against high risk violent offenders as well as high risk sex offenders) appears to require that the Court first undertake a determination of whether a person falls within the definition of a “high risk sex offender” (under s 5B(2)) having regard to the relevant standard prior to considering whether or not to make an ESO, and that it is only once the Court has made a determination that a person is a high risk sex offender that the criteria in s 9(3) are to be addressed.

6. [27]

   The phrase "unacceptable risk of committing a serious sex offence" was introduced into s 9(2) of the Act by the Crimes (Serious Sex Offenders) Amendment Act 2010, which commenced operation on 7 December 2010. It replaced the concept of "likely to commit a further serious sex offence". When the Crimes (Serious Sex Offenders) Amendment Act 2013 was introduced on 19 March 2013 to establish a scheme for the extended supervision or continued detention of violent offenders, the phrase was relocated to s 5B(2) of the Act.

7. [28]

   Subsection 5B(3) makes clear, as did the former s 9(2A), that the Supreme Court is not required to determine that the risk of a person committing a serious sex offence is "more likely than not" in order to determine that the person poses an unacceptable risk if he or she is not kept under supervision. The phrase "unacceptable risk" is not defined by the Act. However, as s 5B(3) makes clear, the new test was not intended to elevate the threshold test to be satisfied.

8. [29]

   In State of New South Wales v Thomas (Preliminary) [2011] NSWSC 118 at [22], R A Hulme J proceeded on a consensual basis that the new formulation does not impose a more stringent test than that which it replaced. At [20], his Honour expressed a tentative view that the test in (the former) s 9(2) was "satisfied if there is a risk that the person will commit a serious sex offence which is present to a sufficient degree so that the safety and protection of the community cannot be ensured unless an order is made."

9. [30]

   In State of New South Wales v Darrego [2011] NSWSC 360 at [5], McCallum J expressed concern that such a formulation puts a gloss on the precise words of the section: "The test in s 9(2) turns on the Court's assessment of the risk posed by the offender of committing a serious sex offence if unsupervised and the Court's judgment as to whether that is an unacceptable risk.” Without expressing a concluded view her Honour said at [11]:

10. [31]

    Her Honour also suggested at [9]-[10] that the Court's approach on the matter might usefully be informed by cases in relation to medical negligence and the concept of material risk.

11. [32]

    In State of New South Wales v Conway [2011] NSWSC 588, Simpson J at [30], without expressing a final view on the issue, stated a preference for the approach taken by R A Hulme J in Thomas. Ultimately, in the final hearing in Thomas [2011] NSWSC 307 at [58], R A Hulme J, in ordering that the defendant be subject to an extended supervision order, gave the words in s 9(2) their ordinary meaning, in the context in which they appeared and having regard to the objects of the Act.

12. [33]

    In State of New South Wales v Richardson (No. 2) [2011] NSWSC 276, Davies J referred to two decisions of the Western Australian Court of Appeal dealing with the cognate legislation in that State. In Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v Williams [2007] WASCA 206; (2007) 176 A Crim R 110, Wheeler JA said at [63]:

13. [34]

    Davies J also referred to the approach adopted by Steytler P and Buss JA in Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) v GTR [2008] WASCA 187; (2008) 198 A Crim R 149 at [27]:

14. [35]

    In applying the s 9(2) test, Davies J said at [90]:

15. [36]

    Davies J concluded that the defendant in that case posed an unacceptable risk of committing a serious sex offence even though he had committed only one (albeit a very violent) sexual offence.

16. [37]

    In State of New South Wales v Cruse [2013] NSWSC 1733 Davies J adopted the same approach to the meaning of unacceptable risk in s 5B(2) of the Act as he had taken in Richardson in respect of the former s 9(2), observing at [8] – [12] that the "learning which had developed in relation to s 9(2) is equally applicable under the amended form of the Act.”

17. [38]

    In Attorney General of New South Wales v McGuire [2015] NSWSC 152 Hoeben CJ at CL conducted the preliminary hearing in an application under Schedule 1 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 for the extension of the defendant's status as a forensic patient. In that context, his Honour considered comparable wording in the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act, including the phrase "unacceptable risk". His Honour noted what he described as a "difference of opinion" that had emerged in first instance decisions in New South Wales under the 2006 Act. His Honour contrasted the approach taken by RA Hulme J in Thomas - to the effect that the words “unacceptable risk” ought to be given their everyday meaning in the context of the provision in which they appear and having regard to the objects of the Act - with the "balancing exercise" approach taken by Davies J in Richardson (No 2). Hoeben CJ at CL said at [44]:

18. [39]

    In State of New South Wales v Mackey (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 1153 at [26]-[27], Schmidt J agreed with Hoeben CJ at CL in McGuire endorsing the approach taken in Thomas.

19. [40]

    In the present case the State emphasised a series of propositions concerning the jurisprudence on the "unacceptable risk" test and the requirements of that test as it appears in s 5B, read in the context of the Act as a whole.

20. [41]

    First, it is preferable to avoid putting a gloss on the words of the statute which require the Court to consider matters such as the nature and likelihood of the relevant risk and form a judgment, based on the evidence, as to whether Mr Kamm poses an unacceptable risk of committing a further serious sex offence. The determination of what is an unacceptable risk may require consideration of various factors (such as the perceived likelihood of recidivism and the type and nature of offences that may be committed absent supervision), and may entail a balancing of factors in cases where they might point towards differing outcomes (such as a low risk of recidivism versus likely drastic consequences to the victim if an offence occurs). Clearly, any analysis of the concept of unacceptable risk involves recognition that there will be a range of factors affecting risk and some cases that are more obvious examples of unacceptability than others.

21. [42]

    Secondly, while it appears that the Court is not required to consider all of the factors listed in s 9(3) in determining whether or not it is satisfied under s 5B(2) to a high degree of probability that a person poses an unacceptable risk of offending (as it must when determining, under s 9, whether or not to make an ESO order at all), those factors should nevertheless inform the s 5B(2) analysis: see Fisk at [22].

22. [43]

    Thirdly, it is important to recall, having regard to s 5B(3), that the Supreme Court may legitimately find in some situations that a person poses an unacceptable risk for the purposes of the statutory test even if the likelihood of them committing a further serious sex offence is determined to be low.

23. [44]

    Finally, while it is necessary to bear in mind the limitations of attempting to draw comparisons with the factual circumstances of other cases, in State of New South Wales v McQuilton [2014] NSWSC 11, R A Hulme J imposed an ESO in respect of a sexual offender who had experienced pervasive rape fantasies, but had only been convicted of a single serious sex offence.

24. [45]

    Decision-making about unacceptable risk is highly fact-dependent but takes place at least in the context of ensuring community safety and protection.

Discretion not to make an ESO

1. [46]

   Under the Act, if the State discharges its burden to establish that the offender is a high risk sex offender under s 5B, the Court still has a discretion whether or not to make an order, and must take into account the criteria in s 9(3). However, where a court is satisfied according to the relevant standard that the offender is a high risk sex offender, it would be an unusual case before the court would decide in its discretion not to make an ESO under s 9.

2. [47]

   In the present case, the State submitted that there were no strong discretionary considerations against the making of such an order in the event that Mr Kamm is found to be a high risk sex offender.

The s 9 factors relating to Mr Kamm

1. [48]

   As noted above, in considering whether an offender is a high risk sex offender for the purposes of s 5B, regard may be had to the relevant factors listed in s 9(3). Those factors may bear upon both the threshold state of satisfaction as to whether Mr Kamm is a high risk sex offender who may be subject to an ESO under ss 5B and 5C of the Act and the exercise of the discretion to make an ESO under s 9.

2. [49]

   On 24 August 2007 Berman DCJ sentenced Mr Kamm following a trial with a jury in respect of six sexual offences relating to the one victim.

3. [50]

   The factual circumstances relating to the offences are set out in his Honour’s remarks on sentence and also in the judgment of Court of Criminal Appeal. Judge Berman described Mr Kamm as “the head of a religious organisation with many, many followers throughout the world.”

4. [51]

   The six counts charged related to conduct engaged in by Mr Kamm in 1994 and 1995, and included penile-vaginal intercourse and digital-vaginal intercourse. The offences took place at a motel and at least one other location. The victim cried out in pain. At the time of the offences charged, the victim was 14 or 15 years old.

5. [52]

   In the Court of Criminal Appeal in Kamm v The Queen [2008] NSWCCA 290 Giles JA said:

6. [53]

   In his sentencing remarks, Judge Berman described Mr Kamm, the religious community he established, and his connection with the victim as follows:

7. [54]

   On the Crown’s case, which the jury by its verdict should be taken to have accepted, Mr Kamm’s sexual relationship with the victim commenced in 1994 when she was 14 years old and had been chosen by him as a “queen”. Mr Kamm was then 45 years old. He did not give evidence at the trial. Through his counsel, he did not dispute that he had a sexual relationship with the victim, but contended that it commenced when she was over the age of 16. However, there was evidence, including letters and a diary entry that corroborated the victim’s account that the sexual relationship commenced when she was 14 years old. Judge Berman described the Crown case against Mr Kamm as “remarkably strong.”

8. [55]

   In sentencing Mr Kamm, Judge Berman said:

9. [56]

   Judge Berman took into account the delay between the offending conduct and the imposition of sentence. However, his Honour referred to what was, in effect, Mr Kamm’s ability to prevent his offending conduct coming to light for a lengthy period:

10. [57]

    Judge Berman further said of Mr Kamm’s offending behaviour:

11. [58]

    Judge Berman regarded the harm caused to the victim as being substantial, and that “she has suffered enormously, and will continue to do so, perhaps for the rest of her life.” His Honour also referred to the significant collateral harm caused by Mr Kamm:

12. [59]

    Judge Berman noted that Mr Kamm had committed, and been sentenced for, prior sexual offences against another young girl who was also taken advantage of by his manipulations. He regarded Mr Kamm as not being a person with a prior good character. His Honour said:

13. [60]

    In respect of the five offences under s 66C(2), Judge Berman imposed sentences, largely concurrent, of 5½ years, with a non-parole period of 3 years. For the offence of commit act of indecency under s 61O(1), his Honour imposed a 6 month fixed term of imprisonment.

14. [61]

    The effective total sentence imposed was a term of imprisonment of 10 years commencing on 14 April 2009 and expiring on 13 October 2015, with a non-parole period of 7 years and 6 months. Mr Kamm was eligible to be released on parole on 13 April 2013.

15. [62]

    On 10 December 2008 the Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed Mr Kamm’s appeal against his conviction.

16. [63]

    On 14 October 2005 Williams DCJ sentenced Mr Kamm in respect of five sexual offences relating to the one female victim committed in 1993. The victim was then 15 years old. Mr Kamm was found guilty after a lengthy trial. The offences were not reported to police until mid-2002. Mr Kamm was arrested on 8 August 2002.

17. [64]

    The count of aggravated sexual intercourse involved digital penetration for between 15 and 20 minutes with associated kissing and fondling, while the indecent assault counts included kissing using his tongue and fondling of breasts and groin. In each case, the aggravating circumstance was that the victim was then under Mr Kamm’s authority.

18. [65]

    The victim’s family had moved to Mr Kamm’s religious community in 1991. Mr Kamm presented himself as receiving visits from the Virgin Mary and being able to communicate with her.

19. [66]

    Shortly prior to the first of the offences, Mr Kamm wrote a letter to the victim stating that she was to be one of his wives or “queens”. Judge Williams described the victim as “a very young immature girl at the time.” Her parents were overwhelmed by the apparent honour being accorded to their daughter, and supported the spiritual component of the relationship between her and Mr Kamm. Judge Williams said “it was in those circumstances that Mr Kamm began his sexual predations on this incredibly vulnerable young girl.”

20. [67]

    Mr Kamm did not give evidence at the trial. Through his counsel, he challenged the victim’s version of events and contended that any kissing that occurred was not indecent. A number of contemporaneous letters from Mr Kamm, which included sexually flirtatious language, corroborated the victim’s account. Judge Williams said:

21. [68]

    Judge Williams said of Mr Kamm’s predatory conduct:

22. [69]

    Judge Williams referred to a pre-sentence report which recorded Mr Kamm saying he was not guilty of the offences. The probation officer also noted that other persons interviewed during the preparation of the report shared similar beliefs and had overtly attempted to vilify the victim during discussions. Judge Williams referred also to a psychological report that included assessment of dynamic risk factors applicable to Mr Kamm.

23. [70]

    In considering the aggravated sexual assault, his Honour referred to the following factors:

24. [71]

    Judge Williams also said:

25. [72]

    In respect of each of the four counts of indecent assault, Judge Williams sentenced Mr Kamm to imprisonment for a fixed term of imprisonment of 12 months to date from 14 October 2005. In respect of the aggravated sexual assault, Judge Williams sentenced Mr Kamm to imprisonment for four years from 14 October 2006 to 3 October 2010, with a non-parole period of 2½ years. The effective total sentence was thus imprisonment for 5 years, with a non-parole period of 3½ years.

26. [73]

    On 9 July 2007 the Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed Mr Kamm’s appeal against his conviction: Kamm v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 201.

27. [74]

    Mr Kamm has no recorded convictions for non-sexual offences.

28. [75]

    During his present incarceration, Mr Kamm incurred institutional misconduct findings in January 2012 and June 2013 for providing false or misleading information to corrective officers (attempting to place the name of a friend, previously identified with his religious order, under the category of legal phone numbers, which would not then be monitored by staff), and unlawfully using a telephone.

29. [76]

    The remarks on sentence of Judge Berman have been referred to above. His Honour categorised Mr Kamm’s conduct as predatory and noted the significant harm caused to the victim.

30. [77]

    By the sentence imposed, which allowed for operation of the statutory ratio, Judge Williams anticipated that Mr Kamm could be supervised in the community for up to 3 years. In the events that have occurred, Mr Kamm spent less than 12 months on parole.

31. [78]

    Mr Kamm became eligible for release on parole on 13 April 2013. The State Parole Authority refused his parole on March 2013 and again on September 2013 at a time when he had yet to complete the CUBIT sex offender treatment program.

32. [79]

    On 14 November 2014 Mr Kamm was released on parole. His conditions of parole included being subject to electronic monitoring. He was also subject to a curfew and to a direction not to associate with any persons currently or previously associated with the Order of Saint Charbel, unless approved by his supervising officer.

33. [80]

    Corrective Services NSW’s ESO Team has provided intensive supervision to Mr Kamm while on parole. A progress report dated 13 February 2015, prepared for the State Parole Authority, recorded that he had been compliant in respect of the conditions of his parole order and directions issued to him. He was described as having engaged co-operatively in his supervision.

34. [81]

    However, the progress report also noted that Mr Kamm continued to verbalise his innocence of the sexual offences for which he had been convicted and to maintain his robust religious beliefs. Christian icons dominated areas of his approved accommodation.

35. [82]

    Mr Kamm married his current wife in December 2014 and resides with her in a rented unit in Sydney. His wife resided in his religious community for approximately 18 years from 1984 to 2002. She was reportedly one of the “queens” in his community during the 1990s.

36. [83]

    The progress report noted, as a matter of concern, that Mr Kamm had made several attempts to have contact with individuals who are identified as supporters from the St Charbel community, and that only minimal contact had been permitted. This is reflective of his institutional misconduct.

37. [84]

    Prior to being released on parole, Mr Kamm had sought permission from Community Corrections to be able to reside at the location of his religious order at Cambewarra. He gave contact details for two people associated with the religious order, including a “Superior” of the order known as “Bishop Malcolm Broussard”. Mr Broussard was, in effect, Mr Kamm’s second-in-charge at the time of his sexual offending and prior to his arrest. Mr Broussard continues to be a supporter.

38. [85]

    During his parole period, Mr Kamm had contact with Mr Broussard. Mr Kamm describes him as currently in charge of the religious community. Mr Broussard has publicly espoused Mr Kamm’s innocence. On the day of the sentencing on 14 October 2005, Mr Kamm issued a general announcement that included the remark that “It would seem on the surface that the dark forces of evil have won a victory…”

39. [86]

    Mr Kamm has also had contact with Mrs Janice Williams, who Mr Kamm identifies as a support person. She is also associated with Mr Kamm’s religious order at Cambewarra, and is a person who Mr Kamm describes as looking after his business and personal affairs. Mr Kamm also states that he continues to receive gifts from his followers.

40. [87]

    A document dated 17 December 2014 records Mr Kamm seeking approval to apply to the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages to register a change of his name to William John Costellia.

41. [88]

    Mr Kamm has reported that he is in the initial stages of forming a political party.

42. [89]

    Since his release from custody, Mr Kamm has also had difficulties and instances of reported conflict with a former wife in connection with contact visits with their daughter. This has included mutual allegations of improper conduct.

43. [90]

    Mr Kamm has a demonstrated capacity to present as a charismatic and mesmerising figure who can attract many thousands of followers. These attributes have permitted him to gain ready access to under-age victims. This is a potent factor in connection with his risk of sexual recidivism.

44. [91]

    Mr Kamm has described himself as “a high profile person known throughout Australia and the world, for some 30 years.” In a letter to the Prime Minister dated 10 July 2003, he wrote: “The Religious Order that I founded in 1986 has grown to 160 countries and has some 500,000 members.”

45. [92]

    Similarly, Mr Kamm told Dr Lennings on 3 September 2015 that he had half a million followers in his order worldwide. He said he is still in contact with these members around the word and receives donations from them. Mr Kamm recently also told Dr Ellis he has an ability to heal others, and that he believes he may have cured cancer and blindness.

46. [93]

    Mr Kamm has also described women as having great respect for him as God’s Prophet or instrument, and that women stand in awe of him as a powerful and influential man. He has also recently said that “women were always attracted to me like a magnet” and “since I was a teenager women of all ages were attracted to me – I have always been a charismatic person.”

47. [94]

    Mr Kamm recently told Mr Sheehan that, throughout his life, females of all ages have been attracted to him. Mr Sheehan reported that he “said that females have been attracted to him because of his good looks, leadership and charisma, as well as his expansive knowledge of religion and other matters” although he “denied being attracted to ‘the youngsters’, but felt that they were generally attracted to him (not necessarily sexually).”

48. [95]

    In his sentencing remarks in 2005, Judge Williams also noted that:

49. [96]

    Through a corporate vehicle, Mr Kamm owns the property at Cambewarra. His followers still reside there.

50. [97]

    Mr Kamm’s religious order has many members who live in the general community rather than in a specifically designated religious community such as the one at Cambewarra. In an affidavit Mr Kamm swore in civil proceedings on 26 July 2009, he said:

51. [98]

    Mr Kamm has indicated an intention to live in a rural setting on a farm at Young once free of restrictions. In a letter dated 18 October 2014 addressed to “My beloved children” he wrote:

52. [99]

    Mr Kamm’s former wife has voiced concern that, in stating his intention to purchase a farm in rural NSW, he may be intending to set up another community.

53. [100]

    In connection with an interview undertaken with Mr Kamm on 1 August 2015, a departmental case note of the Community Corrections Officer (Allison Roberts) records that:

54. [101]

    A risk management report dated 6 October 2015, authored by Ms Allison Roberts of the ESO Team, records police having indicated that Mr Kamm has complied with reporting obligations in connection with the Child Protection Register.

55. [102]

    Ms Allison Roberts prepared a New South Wales Corrective Services “risk management report” dated 6 October 2015 pursuant to s 9(3)(d1) of the Act. That report outlines a continued management plan that has been formulated to assist in the supervision and case management of Mr Kamm, should he become subject to an ESO.

56. [103]

    Mr Kamm participated in the CUBIT program between 27 March 2013 and 23 January 2014. The CUBIT Treatment Report dated 12 March 2014, prepared by Marie Rubio, recorded that throughout his time in the program, Mr Kamm “displayed grandiose and entitled behaviours.” He was reported as having completed work tasks promptly and as having built relations with other participants. However, his staunch religious beliefs and his denial and/or minimisation of his offending history limited aspects of his participation in the program. Ms Rubio said:

57. [104]

    Ms Rubio similarly was of the opinion that “there remains some minimisation and justification, as [Mr Kamm] continues to remain staunch to his religious beliefs.”

58. [105]

    Ms Rubio identified a number of dynamic risk factors including difficulties with sexual self-regulation. She also considered that Mr Kamm had continuing treatment needs. She recommended that upon his release from custody Mr Kamm should participate in the Community-Based Maintenance Program conducted by the Forensic Psychology Services (FPS) unit of Corrective Services NSW. Since his release from custody, Mr Kamm has been attending that program fortnightly.

59. [106]

    In his recent psychological risk assessment report, Mr Sheehan describes Mr Kamm’s participation in CUBIT as follows:

60. [107]

    Dr Gerald Chew provided a report dated 3 November 2014 for the State Parole Authority. Dr Chew reported that Mr Kamm could communicate with the Virgin Mary. Mr Kamm said this was a one-way communication in the form of visions approximately once a month, usually when he was awake but sometimes when he was asleep in the form of a dream.

61. [108]

    Dr Chew assessed Mr Kamm as presenting with a complex belief that is religious in nature. Dr Chew said he appeared to have a significant following in Australia and around the world. Dr Chew said, without this context, Mr Kamm’s beliefs about visions and prophecies could be considered to be hallucinations and delusions, but that the psychiatric definition specifically excludes fixed beliefs where there is a significant cultural or religious acceptance.

62. [109]

    Dr Chew opined that Mr Kamm did not meet the criteria for any major psychotic illness and was not suffering from schizophrenia or a delusional disorder. Dr Chew considered that Mr Kamm’s grandiose thoughts and speech may be associated with a degree of narcissistic personality. He recommended that Mr Kamm continue to participate in sex offender treatment. He did not undertake any risk assessment.

63. [110]

    Dr Andrew Ellis provided a report dated 30 July 2015 addressed to the Crown Solicitor’s Office. Dr Ellis interviewed Mr Kamm on 24 July 2015. He told Dr Ellis that he disputed the charges of which he was convicted and that it was very “easy” to charge a person with sexual offences. He also described each of the victims of his sexual offences as “sexually overactive and promiscuous” and of having been sexually interested in him from the age of 12. He denied any sexual relationship with the victim of the 1993 offences. He said he entered into a sexual relationship with the victim of the 1994-1995 offences only after she was 19 years old.

64. [111]

    Dr Ellis said Mr Kamm:

65. [112]

    With respect to his asserted beliefs, visions and prophecies, Dr Ellis said that Mr Kamm’s “reported perceptual experiences are consistent with cultural phenomenon [sic] rather than the pervasive hallucinatory experiences of mental illness.” Dr Ellis also said that there was “no definitive way at psychiatric interview to determine if [Mr Kamm] truly believes the content of his expressed notions, or if they conveniently assist choices in his life.”

66. [113]

    Having regard to his offending history and his currently expressed attitudes, Dr Ellis made the provisional diagnosis that Mr Kamm meets the criteria for a paraphilic disorder. Dr Ellis said:

67. [114]

    Dr Ellis also considered Mr Kamm met the diagnostic criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder:

68. [115]

    Mr Graham Rendell, a psychologist with FPS, provided a pre-sentence report dated 14 September 2005. Mr Rendell’s risk assessment was undertaken prior to Mr Kamm being convicted of the index sexual offences, and had regard only to 1993 sex offences.

69. [116]

    Mr Rendell undertook psychometric assessment using the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III (MCM-III), the Bumby Molest Scale (BMS) and Bumby Rape Scale (BRS). Mr Kamm presented with elevated scores in the Narcissistic Personality scale, suggesting that he perceived himself as special and likely to assume that many of the conventional rules of living with people did not apply to him. He also endorsed items that tend to minimise the importance of sexual abuse and an offender’s responsibility for a sexual offence.

70. [117]

    Mr Rendell considered Mr Kamm’s risk of re-offending with respect to both static (actuarial) and dynamic risk factors. In terms of actuarial risk, Mr Rendell scored Mr Kamm using the Static-99 instrument. His score placed him within the low risk category relative to other male sex offenders. However, Mr Rendell noted limitations applicable to the Static-99 instrument as a tool for predicting individual behaviour, and stressed the importance of clinical evaluation and the dynamic (or changeable) risk factors.

71. [118]

    Mr Rendell identified particular dynamic risk factors applying to Mr Kamm that serve to heighten his risk of sexual re-offending:

72. [119]

    Mr Rendell said that Mr Kamm “has shown substantial lack of insight about the nature of his offence, and about the effect of his sexualisation of the victim.” Mr Rendell identified him as having extensive treatment needs and recommended that he undertake the CUBIT sex offender treatment program.

73. [120]

    When sentencing Mr Kamm for the 1993 sexual offences, Judge Williams said:

74. [121]

    Ms Rubio scored Mr Kamm as “-2” on the Static-99R actuarial instrument, thus placing him in the low risk category relative to other male sexual offenders by reference to actuarial considerations. However, Ms Rubio also noted the limitations applicable to the Static-99R. Dynamic risk factors included sexual self-regulation, general self-regulation, significant social influences, co-operation with supervision and intimacy deficits.

75. [122]

    In respect of sexual self-regulation, Ms Rubio said:

76. [123]

    While noting that Mr Kamm had made some progress in treatment in connection with this risk factor, Ms Rubio sounded a note of significant caution and emphasised his continuing treatment needs as follows:

77. [124]

    In respect of general self-regulation, Ms Rubio said:

78. [125]

    Ms Rubio noted work undertaken by Mr Kamm on this risk factor in CUBIT, but stated:

79. [126]

    In respect of significant social influences, Ms Rubio said:

80. [127]

    While noting Mr Kamm’s asserted intention to renounce his leadership role in his religious order and to broaden his support network, Ms Rubio said an issue of concern was that:

81. [128]

    While on parole, Mr Kamm has continued to have contact with people from his religious order, who he identifies as supporters, including Mr Broussard and Mrs Williams. In addition, his wife formerly resided at his religious compound for many years.

82. [129]

    With respect to co-operation with supervision, Ms Rubio noted difficulties experienced with Mr Kamm in CUBIT and in custody (institutional charges), including minimisation and attempts to manipulate particular events, but noted some apparent improvement in this context during the CUBIT program.

83. [130]

    With respect to intimacy deficits, Ms Rubio noted, in effect, that Mr Kamm portrayed an ability to develop and maintain intimate relationships throughout his life, but that some of these relationships, such as where a woman became his “spiritual wife” together with other women, were problematic. Ms Rubio said:

84. [131]

    Ms Rubio considered that, having regard to applicable dynamic risk factors, Mr Kamm’s Static-99R risk rating under-represented his risk of sexual recidivism.

85. [132]

    Dr Lennings provided a psychological risk assessment report dated 7 September 2015. For the purpose of his report, he interviewed Mr Kamm on 3 September 2015.

86. [133]

    Dr Lennings noted that Mr Kamm represents an idiosyncratic case in which “his charisma and control as a religious figure” are not easily addressed by conventional actuarial risk assessment. Dr Lennings said that having regard to his unique circumstances, including his status as a mystic with supernatural abilities, dynamic risk assessment provided the most useful measure of risk.

87. [134]

    Dr Lennings utilised the Risk for Sexual Violence Protocol (RSVP) to assist with dynamic risk assessment. Using the RSVP, he identified multiple risk factors “definitely present”, including chronicity of sexual violence, escalation, psychological coercion in sexual violence, sexual deviance, problems with planning, problems with treatment and psychopathic personality (as demonstrated through Machiavellianism and Dissocial Personality Disorder).

88. [135]

    Dr Lennings further identified, as risk factors “somewhat present”, attitudes that support or condone sexual violence, problems with self-awareness, problems with supervision, problems with intimate relationships, problems with non-intimate relationships and problems with employment. He said:

89. [136]

    Dr Lennings assessed Mr Kamm as meeting the diagnostic criteria for Machiavellianism and Dissocial Personality Disorder. In respect of the latter diagnosis, Dr Lennings noted that Mr Kamm has been recorded as evidencing callousness and a lack of concern for others, as having a persistent disregard for social norms, an incapacity to experience guilt and a marked proneness to blame others. His behaviour was said to be outside cultural expectations, to be enduring and to create an adverse impact on his environment. Dr Lennings considered that Mr Kamm might also meet the diagnostic criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

90. [137]

    In respect of risk of sexual re-offending, Dr Lennings concluded:

91. [138]

    Dr Lennings referred to the manner by which Mr Kamm’s reported history as a “seer” and “prophet”, in light of his criminal history, impacted upon his risk of sexual recidivism:

92. [139]

    Dr Ellis assessed Mr Kamm’s risk of sexual recidivism utilising clinical judgement guided by the RSVP instrument. He assessed him as meeting the diagnostic criteria for a Paraphilic Disorder (provisional diagnosis) and Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Dr Ellis identified deviant sexual arousal and personality disorder as key features in connection with Mr Kamm’s risk of sexual recidivism. Dr Ellis said:

93. [140]

    Dr Ellis noted that Mr Kamm had undertaken the CUBIT sex offender treatment program but noted that his “performance in this program was rated as displaying minimisation and justification for his actions based on religious beliefs and only a slight shift in personal responsibility.” In connection with his assessment Dr Ellis said:

94. [141]

    Dr Ellis assessed Mr Kamm with a high risk of sexual recidivism in the context of a potential return to a closed community, which could give him ready access to and influence over potential victims. Dr Ellis said:

95. [142]

    Dr Ellis regarded anti-libidinal medication as indicated to address Mr Kamm’s deviant sexual arousal. However, he noted that he has indicated that he would not take such medication. Dr Ellis regarded Mr Kamm as requiring long-term supervision and treatment and said that his “psychiatric disorders are chronic and likely to persist beyond any period of supervision.”

96. [143]

    Dr Jeremy O’Dea has provided a report dated 3 December 2015. For the purpose of his report, he examined Mr Kamm on 9 and 12 November 2015.

97. [144]

    Dr O’Dea reported that Mr Kamm told him he continued to experience “visions” approximately once or twice a month. These visions were of fully formed individuals “floating above me”. Mr Kamm also told Dr O’Dea that, in 1983 or 1984, the visions wanted him to stop employment and to set up his religious community, and that God gave him instructions to buy the property. He also said that “Our Lord” would appear to him down at the property where a spring would come out of the ground and that it did. Like Lourdes, the water helped heal people from cancer and blindness.

98. [145]

    Dr O’Dea reported that Mr Kamm denied having committed both sets of sex offences. However, he said that he had been the victim of sexual abuse by a priest as a child.

99. [146]

    Dr O’Dea diagnosed Mr Kamm as meeting the criteria for a personality disorder with narcissistic, antisocial and psychopathic traits. Dr O’Dea expressed the view that Mr Kamm would not satisfy the psychiatric criteria for a paraphilic disorder having regard to various matters including the number of adult heterosexual relationships through his life. Dr O’Dea did, however, state that Mr Kamm’s offending conduct could be conceptualised as “heterosexual hebephilia” and could properly be the focus of treatment and management:

100. [147]

     Dr O’Dea was not able to exclude a related psychiatric diagnosis in connection with the visitations or apparitions Mr Kamm claimed to experience. He said Mr Kamm’s responses to such visitations demonstrated poor insight, judgment and emotional control. Even if it is considered that religious “visitations” or apparitions may not constitute psychopathological experiences indicative of psychiatric illness, that did not mean that someone experiencing visual and auditory hallucinations of a religious context was not also suffering from a psychiatric illness:

101. [148]

     Dr O’Dea noted that on a Static-99R actuarial assessment Mr Kamm presented as low risk of sexual recidivism but that, having regard to other (dynamic) considerations, his actual risk was greater:

102. [149]

     Dr O’Dea further said:

103. [150]

     Dr O’Dea also reported that Mr Kamm’s history as a “seer”, “prophet” and “visionary”, capable of leading and persuading others to his forms of belief, appears to have facilitated his sex offending, and is likely to be a factor in his ongoing risk of recidivism, particularly if he were to return to his prior religious activities. Dr O’Dea referred to Mr Kamm’s denial that he committed the offences. Dr O’Dea said:

104. [151]

     Mr Patrick Sheehan provided a report dated 15 November 2015. For the purpose of his report, he examined Mr Kamm on 3 November 2015. Mr Sheehan reported that during interview Mr Kamm showed social skills and was persuasive in his manner. Mr Sheehan said:

105. [152]

     Mr Sheehan recorded Mr Kamm as reporting he had a role to play as the leader of God’s people in the second coming of Christ. He regarded Mr Kamm as meeting the diagnostic criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Mr Sheehan said:

106. [153]

     Mr Sheehan did not assess Mr Kamm as meeting the criteria for antisocial personality disorder or a paedophilic disorder. He did, however, state that he may meet the criteria for Other Specified Paraphilic Disorder (Hebephilia), involving a sexual interest in pubescent or early adolescent females.

107. [154]

     In assessing Mr Kamm’s risk of sexual re-offending, Mr Sheehan had regard to actuarial assessment and also applicable dynamic risk factors including his problems in benefiting from treatment, superficial co-operation with supervision, and association with members of his order. Mr Sheehan said:

108. [155]

     Mr Sheehan summarised his view regarding the risk presented by Mr Kamm as follows:

The State’s submissions

1. [156]

   The State submitted that, having regard to the supporting material and expert evidence, Mr Kamm is properly to be regarded as presenting a continuing and appreciable risk of sexually re-offending against under-age females. This risk arises particularly in connection with his dangerously unorthodox religious beliefs, his narcissistic traits, the persistence of beliefs which enable him to rationalise his conduct, and his demonstrated ability to obtain access to, and exercise influence over, potential victims.

2. [157]

   Further, this appreciable risk remains even if Mr Kamm does not re-establish his participation in a closed community compound such as Cambewarra. Mr Kamm continues to maintain and to espouse his unorthodox religious beliefs. By his own account, many of the members of his religious order live in the general community rather than in a closed compound. There are also real concerns that, if an ESO is not made, following the expiration of his parole order Mr Kamm will further re-integrate with members of his order and position himself in a rural area, away from scrutiny and in a manner that will provide ready access to under-age followers. Having regard to his history and current presentation, along with his propensity to minimise or deny his offending behaviour and his lack of insight into its seriousness, there is a clear justification for intensive monitoring and supervision of the type provided by an ESO, coupled with a continued focus on directing Mr Kamm to address outstanding treatment needs.

3. [158]

   The State contended that the following matters are relevant not only to the discretion to grant an ESO, but also to whether I would ultimately be satisfied that Mr Kamm is a "high risk sex offender" for the purposes of s 5B(2):

   1. (1)

      Mr Kamm has a history of sexual offending against under-age females in a manner that was chronic and caused significant harm to his victims.

   2. (2)

      Mr Kamm has been assessed as presenting a potential for further serious sexual offending, should he be released into the community without supervision, which is variously described by experts on the basis of clinical assessment and with regard to dynamic risk factors as a “high” likelihood, a “significant” risk, or as being within the “moderate to high” risk category.

   3. (3)

      Dr Ellis has identified Mr Kamm as having a paraphilic disorder (provisional) centred upon deviant sexual arousal. This disorder is described as being a chronic, relapsing condition that is resistant to treatment and rehabilitative efforts.

   4. (4)

      Mr Kamm has a co-morbid Narcissistic Personality Disorder that impacts upon his treatment and response to supervision. He is further assessed as meeting the diagnostic criteria for Machiavellianism and Dissocial Personality Disorder, meaning that he is manipulative and deceptive.

   5. (5)

      Mr Kamm has expressed an unwillingness to take anti-libidinal medication to address his deviant sexual arousal.

   6. (6)

      Mr Kamm has a demonstrated and longstanding propensity to present as a charismatic and mesmerising figure who can attract many thousands of followers. This has provided him with ready access to, and influence over, followers, including under-age victims.

   7. (7)

      Mr Kamm continues to present himself as the “Little Pebble” and to preach his unorthodox religious views via the Littlepebble.org website. He continues to have contact with members of his religious order.

   8. (8)

      Mr Kamm’s religious order still exists and people associated with it continue to reside in the property at Cambewarra. Mr Kamm’s company owns the property.

   9. (9)

      Mr Kamm continues to deny having committed the sexual offences for which he has been convicted and demonstrates little or no insight into his offending behaviour or his risk of sexual recidivism. He is without empathy for the effect of his conduct upon his victims. Mr Kamm has described each of the victims of his sexual offences as being "sexually overactive and promiscuous" and of having been sexually interested in him from the age of 12.

   10. (10)

       Treatment of Mr Kamm thus far is at an early stage and has had only minimal positive impact. As Mr Sheehan has put it, "Mr Kamm has only a superficial level of engagement in the treatment process".

   11. (11)

       Mr Kamm does not appear to interact with non-collusive peers who can adequately challenge problematic behaviour on his part, given that his wife and other identified supporters are associated with his religious order and have been his followers.

   12. (12)

       Mr Kamm has significant treatment needs that have not been fully addressed, as well as a need for long-term supervision. These treatment needs can be met, at least in part, by participation in the Community-based Maintenance Program that FPS conducts.

   13. (13)

       Mr Kamm has not had any lengthy period of supervision in the community of the type contemplated by the sentencing judge.

   14. (14)

       In the absence of supervision and support of the type that could be provided by an ESO, Mr Kamm is likely to return to the high risk behaviours associated with his sexual offending.

Mr Kamm’s submissions

1. [159]

   It should be noted that Mr Lange of counsel on behalf of Mr Kamm made the following uncontroversial but very proper concessions for the purposes of various matters with which the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act is directly concerned:

   1. (1)

      Mr Kamm is a "supervised sex offender" within the meaning of s 5I.

   2. (2)

      At the time the summons was filed Mr Kamm was a "supervised sex offender".

   3. (3)

      The offence for which Mr Kamm was detained was a "serious sex offence" within the meaning of s 5(1).

   4. (4)

      The present application was brought within the last 6 months of Mr Kamm’s custody or supervision as required by s 6(2).

2. [160]

   The burden of Mr Kamm’s submissions was that the prospect that he might re-offend was contextual, meaning that the offences occurred in situations where he had access to vulnerable members of his spiritual community. As there was no appreciable likelihood that he would return to the Cambewarra community or anything similar, the risk of sexual offences with under-age females was remote. In such circumstances, having regard to the absence of any prospect that Mr Kamm would re-offend with strangers, he could not be considered to be a high risk sex offender.

3. [161]

   Mr Kamm submitted that in order to be satisfied of the test under s 5B, I had to be satisfied to a high degree of probability that he would return to the community, and assume a mentoring role, or otherwise start a fresh community, which would give him access to potential victims. There is no such evidence, and certainly none that would support an inference to the requisite standard. Even accepting Dr Ellis’ opinion that Mr Kamm’s “financial and social status in the group, plus [a] desire he would wish to provide assistance to the group into the future indicates without supervision this context could readily occur”, Mr Kamm contended that such a conclusion did not rise to a sufficient level of satisfaction. While there is always the possibility that Mr Kamm may re-engage with the order and its members in a more active way if not supervised, the evidence about that is unsatisfactory. In this regard, it should also be noted that none of the material on Mr Kamm’s website demonstrates or suggests that social media have been used to gain access to potential victims.

4. [162]

   Mr Kamm emphasised what was said in State of New South Wales v Donovan [2015] NSWCA 280 at [80]:

5. [163]

   Accordingly, Mr Kamm submitted for this reason alone that the order should not be made.

6. [164]

   Furthermore, Mr Kamm submitted that a number of factors would lead me to conclude that he does not pose an unacceptable risk of committing further relevant offences. In this regard, the expert evidence does not speak entirely with one voice. While Dr Lennings places Mr Kamm in the high risk category, Dr Ellis says he falls "into a group of persons with a risk of sexual offending that is of high concern.” Dr O'Dea desists from making a likelihood prediction and Mr Sheehan says that Mr Kamm poses a moderate to high risk. In those circumstances, I could not conclude that Mr Kamm poses an unacceptable risk.

7. [165]

   In considering the opinion of Dr Lennings, it should be remembered that it appeared to be based upon the assumed dichotomy that Mr Kamm would always pursue his criminal behaviour unless otherwise impeded by external factors, such as incarceration, supervision, or external scrutiny. However, for the period after the last offence in 1995 until 2002 there is no evidence that Mr Kamm engaged in deviant behaviour, or that he was in some way prevented from doing so had he wished. As Dr Lennings conceded, if there was a cessation of such conduct, that could affect the assessment of the risk posed by Mr Kamm.

8. [166]

   Mr Kamm is now 65. As confirmed by Mr Sheehan during cross-examination, and stated by Dr Ellis in his report, "offenders over the age of 60 show very low rates of re-offending as a group." Mr Kamm’s age stands in contrast to his age at the time of the commission of the offences, when he was in his mid-40s.

9. [167]

   Mr Kamm submitted that the forensic evidence is insufficient to permit me to conclude that he poses an unacceptable risk of the commission of further relevant offences.

10. [168]

    Furthermore, Mr Kamm submitted that I should also take into account the very burdensome nature of the conditions, which are sought by the State to be imposed, either as part of the balancing exercise when considering the risk posed or alternatively in deciding whether to make the order at all. Because the type of offending in which it is said Mr Kamm might engage is very specific, other less drastic means are available to monitor him should a concern about his conduct arise. For example, there is no reason to suppose that an order pursuant to s 8 of the Child Protection (Offenders Prohibition Orders) Act 2004 could not be made.

Consideration

1. [169]

   Section 5B of the Act is as follows:

2. [170]

   In my opinion, Mr Kamm poses an unacceptable risk of committing a serious sex offence if he is not kept under supervision. I am satisfied that he does so to a high degree of probability. My reasons for coming to that conclusion are as follows.

3. [171]

   Mr Kamm has a criminal history of highly manipulative, opportunistic and cynical predation upon under-age females for his sexual gratification by grooming and deception. In that respect Mr Kamm used the persuasive influence upon vulnerable individuals of fabricated communications with religious identities or alleged spiritual beings. Although a considerable therapeutic or clinical benevolence is evident in the psychiatric analysis of whether Mr Kamm’s visitations or communications are pathological delusions or self-serving lies, it is ultimately irrelevant for present purposes whether Mr Kamm’s predispositions and propensities are the function of an identifiable mental illness or not. I much prefer the approach taken by each of the sentencing judges who were astute in identifying Mr Kamm’s behaviour as pretence.

4. [172]

   I have set out at some considerable length the opinions and conclusions of a large number of medical specialists who have examined Mr Kamm over many years. I was considerably aided in that task by the written submissions of counsel whose summaries of the medical findings are uncontroversial. Indeed, as Mr Lange of counsel specifically conceded, Mr Kamm “does not take issue with the diagnosis of his personality”, with which to a considerable extent that medical material is concerned.

5. [173]

   It seems to me to be evident to the point of comfortable satisfaction that Mr Kamm has no insight into his offending, has demonstrated no remorse for his actions and possesses no understanding of the effect of his actions upon his victims. Mr Kamm remains convinced that he is a special person with an impressive and predetermined destiny. He continues even now publicly to reaffirm these arguably delusional self-perceptions. A reference to the Little Pebble website, with material from which I have been provided, conspicuously supports this. The difficulty for present purposes is that these perceptions, which were at the heart of Mr Kamm’s original offending, show no significant or appreciable sign of attenuation.

6. [174]

   Mr Kamm continues to maintain his innocence. That is so notwithstanding two unsuccessful appeals against his convictions to the Court of Criminal Appeal. One unavoidable conclusion from the fact that Mr Kamm continues to view himself as blameless is that I cannot be confident that he would now consider the repetition of his offending conduct as either criminal or even morally wrong. Whatever disincentive to repeat offending may exist in the prospect of detection or further incarceration, Mr Kamm does not also appear to have any appreciation of the total unacceptability of his behaviour. That is apparent from his revelations to some of the various experts who have examined him. In short, in circumstances where the opportunity to do so arises, Mr Kamm has been assessed as having no self-regulatory abilities to resist reoffending.

7. [175]

   Mr Kamm’s contentions are predicated upon the notion that the opportunity for further offending will not arise. However, Mr Kamm has not disavowed his delusional view of himself as a seer or a prophet or howsoever his imagined special circumstances might be characterised. It is Mr Kamm’s extraordinary view of himself that has previously afforded him the assumed authority to commit criminal acts with under-age women. It is in my view only a short step from repeating such conduct as long as Mr Kamm perceives or professes himself to have divine sanction for his conduct. Restoration of Mr Kamm as the residential leader of a religious commune does not seem to me to be the single precondition to the commission of further serious sex offences. In my opinion it is essential to keep Mr Kamm under strict and close supervision even in the wider community.

8. [176]

   Although none of the medical professionals referred to has used the term, Mr Kamm’s particular sexual predispositions appear to be almost intractable. It will be recalled that Dr Ellis considered that Mr Kamm’s psychiatric disorders were chronic and likely to persist beyond any period of supervision. To the extent that his condition may be amenable to therapy, no tangible advances have so far been demonstrated. Mr Kamm therefore remains likely to commit further serious sex offences against female minors. He poses an unacceptable risk of doing so unless he is kept under supervision.

Duration

1. [177]

   The State contended that the general approach taken by Johnson J in State of New South Wales v Tillman [2008] NSWSC 1293 at [62]-[66] is informative:

2. [178]

   The experts are agreed that Mr Kamm will require long-term treatment.

3. [179]

   Dr Ellis expressed the following view:

4. [180]

   Dr Lennings was of a similar opinion:

5. [181]

   Dr O'Dea put the matter in these terms:

6. [182]

   Finally, Mr Sheehan relevantly said this:

7. [183]

   Mr Kamm contended that a shorter period would be preferable inasmuch as it would operate as an incentive or encouragement to him to change over time and respond to treatment. Although the legislation provides that an order for 5 years can be made, a lesser period may be adopted. Significantly, the assessments of the various practitioners are based on a variety of dynamic risk factors, suggesting the possibility of change over time. Mr Kamm submitted that a shorter period would give recognition to the fact that circumstances may change and recognise the very intrusive nature of the order: see, for example, New South Wales v Bowdidge [2015] NSWSC 717 at [34] and State of New South Wales v Lynn [2015] NSWSC 665 at [84].

8. [184]

   Section 13(1) of the Act provides that the Supreme Court may at any time vary or revoke and extended supervision order on the application of either the State or the offender. One of the bases upon which the Court may revoke an extended supervision order is if it is satisfied that circumstances have changed sufficiently to render the order unnecessary. In the present case the expert medical opinion strongly favours the imposition of conditions for the maximum period of five years. I can see no reason why that opinion should not be accepted and applied. If there is a change in circumstances, or for any other reason, Mr Kamm can apply for a revocation of the order. Far from operating as a disincentive or discouragement, Mr Kamm would to a considerable extent become the author of his own destiny.

9. [185]

   I consider that the order should be made for the maximum period allowable.

10. [186]

    The State proposed a series of conditions to which Mr Kamm should be subjected. I have largely adopted those conditions. However, I have deleted some of the proposed conditions that appeared to me to be unnecessary or inappropriately restrictive and I have amended others. Having regard to the risk posed by Mr Kamm, the conditions appearing in the Schedule to these reasons seem to me to be more than adequate to deal with the unacceptable risk that I have identified.

Orders

1. [187]

   In the circumstances I make the following orders:

   1. (1)

      Order pursuant to s 5C of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 that William Kamm be subject to a high risk sex offender extended supervision order for a period of 5 years from today.

   2. (2)

      Direct pursuant to s 11 of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 for the period of the high risk sex offender extended supervision order that William Kamm comply with the conditions set out in the SCHEDULE to these orders.