[2025] NSWSC 226

State of New South Wales v White (a pseudonym) (Final)

(1) Revoke the interim supervision order made on 13 December 2024. (2) An order pursuant to ss 5B and 9(1)(a) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (“the Act”) that the defendant be subject to an extended supervision order for a period of three years commencing today. (3) An order pursuant to s 11 of the Act, directing that the defendant, for the period of the extended supervision order, comply with the conditions set out in the schedule to this order. (4) Confirm the order made on 13 December 2024 restricting access to the Supreme Court’s file.

Catchwords

CIVIL LAW – high risk offender – final hearing – extended supervision order – where interim order breached on the day it commenced – defendant in custody at time of hearing – frotteuristic and paedophilic disorders – cognitive impairment – no dispute that order should be made – no question of principle

Cases cited

State of New South Wales v White (a pseudonym)[2024] NSWSC 1600

Legislation cited

Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), § 5B, 9(1)(a), 10A, 11

Judgment

[1]
On 13 December 2024, on the application of the State of New South Wales, I made an interim supervision order pursuant to s 10A of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) (“the Act”) against the defendant who is known by the pseudonym George White: State of New South Wales v White (a pseudonym) [2024] NSWSC 1600 (“NSW v White”). The order was to commence on 20 January 2025 and was to endure for a period of 28 days. I resolved several disputes between the parties concerning the contents and precise terms of the conditions attaching to the order. The circumstances in which the order was made, the content of the disputes around the conditions, and the reasons I reached the necessary level of satisfaction concerning risk to justify the making of the order is set out in the earlier judgment.
[2]
The matter came before me for a final hearing on Monday 17 March 2025. In view of the position taken by the parties and factual developments since the preliminary hearing, I will not repeat the contents of the earlier judgment here. The facts of the offence which exposes the defendant to orders under the Act are summarised at [17]-[23] and the assessment of risk is discussed at [24]-[32].
[3]
The State now seeks an extended supervision order and Mr Ng, counsel for the defendant, accepts that the statutory pre-requisites for the making of such an order are satisfied. In view of the evidence and developments since the preliminary hearing, Mr Ng cannot responsibly resist the making of an order. The defendant himself understands that such an order should and will be made.
[4]
Since the interim supervision order was made, the following things have occurred, as reported in an agreed statement of facts and elsewhere in the material tendered or read on the final hearing:
1. (1)
  On 20 January 2025, officers of Community Corrections explained the interim supervision order to the defendant.
2. (2)
  On 21 January 2025, the defendant was provided with a signed copy of the order and confirmed that he understood the conditions. On the same day, the defendant advised Community Corrections about an incident which occurred at “Big W” involving him and two young children. He said the children had accused him of touching them. Regional Disability Services staff “noted that when on outings, the defendant approaches children and tries to hug them”.
3. (3)
  On 22 January 2025, the defendant was arrested and charged with breaching the interim supervision order after admitting to police that he had approached the children at Big W.
4. (4)
  The defendant was released on bail late on 22 January 2025.
5. (5)
  On 30 January 2025, the defendant was charged with contravening a prohibition order and sexually touching another person without consent, offences which allegedly occurred on 21 January 2025 and, presumably, relate to the same incident at Big W.
6. (6)
  On 4 February 2025, the three outstanding criminal charges were before the Local Court and bail was refused.
7. (7)
  On 4 February 2025, an out of home care co-ordinator with “New Directions”, an organisation that assists the defendant through his generous NDIS funding, advised that while clearing out the defendant’s things at his accommodation, material written by the defendant was discovered and that this “contained disturbing content and deviant thoughts”. The material was given to, and was retained by, NSW Police.
8. (8)
  On 14 February 2025, Dr Sally McSwiggan, a neuropsychologist, provided a court ordered expert report. She had conducted an assessment on 10 February 2025.
9. (9)
  On 16 February 2025, Dr Yolisha Singh, a psychiatrist with expertise in adolescents and young adults, provided a comprehensive and extremely helpful court ordered report for the purpose of the final hearing. That assessment was based on a consultation with the defendant on 17 January 2025.
10. (10)
  In the period since the preliminary hearing, the organisation co-ordinating the defendant’s living arrangements and general care has gone out of business. The NDIS funding remains in place and new arrangements for his accommodation, care and support are being arranged.
[5]
The State’s application was brought within the time limits provided by the Act and complies with the statute’s formal requirements: NSW v White at [6], [29].
[6]
My opinions as to the risks posed by the defendant were set out in the earlier judgment. The events since the preliminary hearing and the contents of the report by Dr Singh, and less so that of Dr McSwiggan, fortify me in those findings.
[7]
I am satisfied to a high degree of probability that the defendant poses an unacceptable risk of committing a serious offence if he is not kept under supervision pursuant to an extended supervision order.
[8]
The conclusion in the last paragraph is based on the following:
[9]
I have considered the opinions of Dr Singh who raised sensible questions about a few of the proposed conditions. She was of the opinion that some of the conditions may infringe the defendant’s independence and be counterproductive.
[10]
However, I am satisfied the conditions agreed upon by the parties are appropriate. These reflect determinations made on the interim order considered against the unfortunate events of January this year, where the interim supervision order appeared to be breached on the day it came into effect.
[11]
I expect the supervising officers will consider closely the opinions expressed by Dr Singh. I accept her opinions over those of Dr McSwiggan both generally and on the issue of the appropriateness of various conditions.
[12]
Accordingly, I make the following orders:
1. (1)
  Revoke the interim supervision order made on 13 December 2024.
2. (2)
  An order pursuant to ss 5B and 9(1)(a) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (“the Act”) that the defendant be subject to an extended supervision order for a period of three years commencing today.
3. (3)
  An order pursuant to s 11 of the Act, directing that the defendant, for the period of the extended supervision order, comply with the conditions set out in the schedule to this order.
4. (4)
  Confirm the order made on 13 December 2024 restricting access to the Supreme Court’s file.