State of New South Wales v Thompson (Final)

1. [1]

   By way of a Second Further Amended Summons (SFAS) dated 26 May 2023, the plaintiff State of New South Wales sought final orders for an extended supervision order (ESO) against the defendant Mr Thompson pursuant to ss 5B and 9(1)(a) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (the HRO Act) for a period of three years (later changed to two years), and for an order pursuant to s 11 of the HRO Act that Mr Thompson comply with conditions as set out in the Schedule A to the SFAS.

2. [2]

   At the time the original Summons (seeking preliminary orders) was filed, Mr Thompson was serving a sentence of 5 years imprisonment for aggravated break and enter (in company) and commit armed robbery, with a non-parole period of three years (the index offence), which commenced on 13 March 2018 and expired on 12 March 2023. Mr Thompson was released to parole on 23 September 2022. The sentence was imposed partly concurrent and partly cumulative with other break and enter offences, the total term commencing on 13 September 2016.

3. [3]

   On 9 March 2023, Walton J made an Interim Supervision Order (ISO) to date from 12 March 2023 and to expire on 9 April 2023 (see: State of New South Wales v HT (Preliminary) [2023] NSWSC 249 (the preliminary judgment)). His Honour’s judgment details much of the background to this application, which I will not repeat. I adopt the chronology and content of his Honour’s reasons. On 6 April 2023, Yehia J renewed the ISO for a period of 28 days, to date from 9 April 2023. A further 28-day renewal was granted by her Honour on 4 May 2023, to take effect from 7 May 2023. The ISO was due to expire on 4 June 2023.

4. [4]

   On 2 June 2023, there was a final hearing in which I made the orders sought in the SFAS. At the commencement of the hearing, I granted the plaintiff leave to file in court the SFAS (which no longer claimed interim and interlocutory relief and amended the Schedule to a Further Amended Summons which set out the proposed conditions to be imposed on the defendant).

5. [5]

   During the hearing, the parties reached agreement on all orders, so that the orders that I made were by consent. What follows are my reasons for making the orders.

6. [6]

   I am grateful to both Mr Mykkeltvedt, who appeared for the plaintiff, and Ms Marsden who appeared for the defendant, for the collaborative manner in which they approached these proceedings.

Orders sought

1. [7]

   The plaintiff sought the following orders:

Background

1. [8]

   The defendant is currently 42 years of age. He is a Dunghutti and Kamilaroi man who now resides in supported accommodation with 24-hour onsite carers. He experienced an extremely disturbed and traumatic early development, which included being put into foster care at an early age and suffering sustained sexual abuse for a number of years as a child. He has an extensive criminal history dating from 1995, including committing offences in breach of parole. Mr Thompson has spent less than two years outside of custody since November 1999 and is said to be institutionalised.

2. [9]

   Whilst in custody for the index offending, the defendant was charged with sexual offences which were resolved by a plea of guilty to one count of indecent assault of a child under 16 (contrary to the now repealed s 61M(2) of the Crimes Act 1900) (the serious offence), which was committed on 2 August 2016. The defendant was sentenced for this offence on 3 April 2020 by Priestley SC DCJ to a fixed term of six months imprisonment backdated to commence on 2 September 2019 and had expired (on 1 March 2020) when it was imposed. The State of New South Wales submitted that this was a “serious sex offence” for the purposes of ss 5(1)(a)(i) and 5(1)(d) of the HRO Act (to which see further below), as it carried a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment and involved a child.

Evidence

1. [10]

   Most of the evidence tendered by the plaintiff on the final application was also tendered at the preliminary hearing. Two additional volumes of material were tendered at the final hearing. Relevantly, included in those volumes are reports of Dr Gordon Elliott, psychiatrist dated 7 April 2023, a report of Dr Amanda White, neuropsychologist and forensic psychologist dated 28 April 2023 (both appointed to conduct examinations of the defendant by Walton J) and annexed to affidavits read in the proceedings were various Offender Integrated Management System (OIMS) notes and an occupational therapist’s report that were brought into existence since the date of the preliminary hearing before Walton J.

Legislative framework

1. [11]

   The following sections of the HRO Act have relevance.

2. [12]

   Section 3 of the HRO Act sets out its objects:-

3. [13]

   Section 5 of the HRO Act defines “serious sex offence” and “offence of a sexual nature” which are relevant to this matter:

4. [14]

   Section 5B sets out four pre-requisites for the making of an ESO. I note that the parties do not dispute that the requirements of each of subsections (a)–(c) are met in this case, and I observe that I am independently satisfied. Section 5B provides:-

5. [15]

   Mr Thompson is an “offender who has served a sentence of imprisonment for a serious offence in custody” (s 5B(a)), as he is over 18 years of age (being 42 years old) satisfying s 4A(a), and he has been sentenced to imprisonment to be served by way of full-time detention following his conviction for a sentence, being the sentence of imprisonment imposed for the serious sex offence commencing on 2 September 2019 and expiring on 1 March 2020, satisfying s 4A(b). Further, he is a “supervised offender” within the meaning of s 5I, satisfying s5B(b), as he is an offender who, when the application for the order was made, was under supervision while serving a sentence of imprisonment for another offence and that sentence of imprisonment “for another offence” was served partly concurrently and partly consecutively with a sentence of imprisonment for a “serious offence”, namely the sentence of six months imprisonment for the serious sex offence, satisfying s 5I(2)(a)(iv), and the application for the order is made in accordance with s 5I satisfying s 5B(c).

6. [16]

   I observe that with respect to Mr Thompson’s status as a “supervised offender”, both parties accept the reasoning of Walton J in the preliminary judgment at [17] to [22].

7. [17]

   Section 5B(d) is the key provision with respect to the making of an ESO. I must be satisfied to a “high degree of probability” that Mr Thompson poses an unacceptable risk of committing another serious offence if not kept under supervision under an order. In determining whether Mr Thompson poses an unacceptable risk, the court must have regard to the matters in s 9(3)(a) – (i).

8. [18]

   The words “to a high degree of probability” indicate a higher standard of proof than the civil standard of the balance of probabilities, but does not rise to the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt. In Cornwall v Attorney-General for New South Wales [2007] NSWCA 374 at [21], the Court of Appeal said:-

9. [19]

   Both parties submit that I would be satisfied to a high degree of probability that Mr Thompson poses an unacceptable risk of committing another serious offence if not kept under a supervision order having regard to the various matters set out in s 9(3)(a)-(i). I indicate that I am so satisfied, the reasons for which will become apparent after a review of the evidence against the criteria in s 9(3).

10. [20]

    Section 9(2) of the HRO Act provides that, in determining whether or not to make an ESO, “the safety of the community must be the paramount consideration.” This is consistent with the primary object of the HRO Act as set out in s 3(1). I am satisfied that the safety of the community will be best served if I make the ESO.

11. [21]

    Section 9(3) sets out the matters to which the Court must have regard in its determination as to whether or not an ESO should be imposed:-

12. [22]

    Section 10 provides for the term of an ESO:

13. [23]

    As to conditions that may be imposed when making an ESO, s 11 provides:

14. [24]

    I turn now to the factors I must consider pursuant to s 9(3).

Section 9(3) factors

1. [25]

   The defendant has a significantly deprived and disadvantaged background that provides context for his criminal history. He is one of seven siblings. He was removed from his parents’ care when he was about three years old due to concerns about neglect and exposure to abuse and drug and alcohol use. He was sexually assaulted from about age five to age ten and placed into foster care when he was 11 after absconding from kinship placement. Mr Thompson began abusing alcohol and illicit substances at about 12 years of age and was diagnosed with drug-induced psychosis at approximately 16 years of age, and later with chronic schizophrenia.

2. [26]

   Mr Thompson has a lengthy history of criminal offending which began in 1995. He has spent less than two years outside of custody since November 1999. His current release to parole since September 2022 is the longest consecutive period he has spent in the community since 1999. The defendant’s criminal history contains only one offence which is a serious sexual offence. However, in the plaintiff’s submission, the defendant has committed a range of offences that could have escalated to a serious sex or violence offence. Most of the defendant’s criminal history involves break and enter offences which sometimes involved him possessing a weapon or leading to assault. However, there have also been occasions when the defendant exposed himself.

3. [27]

   The index offending involved three offences. The first was an offence of break and enter with intent to steal, committed on 19 August 2016 at a gymnasium. The second was an offence of aggravated break and enter and commit robbery in company, committed on 8 September 2016 at a motel. The third offence was committed on 4 September 2016, which involved aggravated break and enter and stealing in company at a laundry service. In relation to the offence committed at the motel, the defendant was armed with a large knife and pole. Cash was stolen and the defendant struck the male victim on the face which caused a split lip.

4. [28]

   This offence was committed on 2 August 2016, 23 days after the defendant had been released from custody. The defendant approached the 15 year old male victim walking in a public street and asked him if he knew where the defendant could “get on it” and if the victim wanted to make some money. The victim agreed to go with the defendant to a basketball court in the local high school grounds where the defendant told the victim that he had been released from gaol for murder and that “I haven’t gotten any arse since then, so I was thinking I could pay you $80,000 and I could do some things to you.” The victim declined. He then offered the victim $80,000 to perform oral sex on him, which the victim also declined. The defendant suggested that they walk to a brick wall where he put both hands beside the victim’s head and said “if I had a million dollars, I’d have my way with you.” The victim feared he would be killed and tried to walk away but the defendant grabbed his shoulder, pulling the victim in close and said “give me a hug” before putting both arms around the victim. The defendant then pushed the victim down by the shoulders and said “well you’ve got no choice now, you’re going to get on your fucking knees and suck my dick.” The victim pushed the defendant in the stomach and ran away. The victim dropped his phone but persuaded the defendant to return it. The defendant said to the victim “can I get a blow job before you go?”

5. [29]

   The agreed facts for this offending also disclosed that the defendant had approached a 14 year old boy in the same area, starting a similar conversation about two hours prior, and had similarly approached another boy fifteen days later in a nearby town.

6. [30]

   On sentence, Priestley SC DCJ found that the indecent assault was constituted by the words used and by forcing the victim into a position to perform fellatio.

7. [31]

   Dr Elliott, general and forensic psychiatrist, prepared a report for the court dated 7 April 2023. Dr Elliott previously assessed and provided reports on 10 February 2020 and 29 March 2021. He was Mr Thompson’s treating psychiatrist whilst he was in custody. On 31 March 2023, Dr Elliott conducted a 90 minute assessment of the defendant by video link. He was provided with collateral documents for the purposes of the assessment report which he summarised at great length.

8. [32]

   Dr Elliott observed that from the outset of his assessment, Mr Thompson’s ability to participate was significantly affected by his level of sedation. He was drowsy and fell asleep between every question.

9. [33]

   Since his release to parole, Mr Thompson has received the disability support pension and has a NDIS package that funds his supported accommodation. There has been a breakdown in the relationship between Mr Thompson and his supported accommodation such that they will no longer be providing after hours care gratuitously from 19 June 2023.

10. [34]

    Dr Elliott reported that Mr Thompson is a single man who said that he has five daughters aged between 18 and 23 with four different partners. Dr Elliott expressed some doubt as to the accuracy of this account, as it was at odds with previous statements made by the defendant.

11. [35]

    Mr Thompson’s current routine includes going fishing every day and bushwalking regularly. He also paints, often with family members, and has sold some of his works. He has obtained his learner’s driver licence. Mr Thompson visits his mother once a fortnight and is in regular contact with his sister. His father recently died, and he has struggled to cope with the loss.

12. [36]

    Dr Elliott asked the defendant about his connection to country and culture since leaving custody. Mr Thompson told Dr Elliott that he has been though initiation rituals and men’s business which he said has helped “100%”, including with his auditory hallucinations which he reported had stopped after completing the rituals, about six weeks before the assessment.

13. [37]

    Mr Thompson was prompted to talk about incidents at his supported accommodation where he reportedly brandished weapons. As an explanation for the incidents, Mr Thompson said that he held fears for his safety and alleged that someone had tried to attack him. Mr Thompson alleged that on another occasion, staff were making fun of him. Mr Thompson denied that these incidents were consistent with auditory hallucinations.

14. [38]

    With respect to the defendant’s psychiatric history, Dr Elliott reported that Mr Thompson has a long standing diagnosis of chronic schizophrenia and that at the time of the assessment, the defendant’s mental state appeared relatively stable. His mental illness is characterised by episodic fluctuations in psychotic symptoms in response to stress, and particularly with substance use. Dr Elliott suggested that Mr Thompson may have a degree of treatment resistance but noted that this would require further assessment.

15. [39]

    As to Mr Thompson’s history of substance use, Dr Elliott reported that the defendant has a history of binge drinking and cannabis use from the age of 14. Mr Thompson told Dr Elliott that he had been abstinent from all substances including alcohol since the time of his father’s death when he smoked “a couple of joints and that’s it.” He admitted to injecting methamphetamines and abusing Buprenorphine whilst in custody.

16. [40]

    In Dr Elliott’s opinion, Mr Thompson has significant maladaptive personality traits of an anti-social nature. In his view, the defendant’s psychiatric condition and substance abuse contributes to his risk of committing a serious sex offence. His substance abuse increases his risk both by driving psychotic symptoms and more generally, through disinhibition and impairment of judgement.

17. [41]

    Dr Elliott’s assessment of risk broadly aligns with the assessment contained in the Risk Assessment Report (RAR) (see below) that placed the defendant in the ‘well above average’ risk category. Dr Elliott applied the Static-99R tool which yielded a score of 9 and which placed the defendant in this category. In Dr Elliott’s opinion, Mr Thompson’s illness may fluctuate with time, but his psychiatric history and substance abuse are closely associated with his risk of recidivism. Dr Elliott says that, despite some favourable signs, including achieving a level of stability, he holds ‘significant concerns’ as to whether Mr Thompson’s risk of committing a further serious sex offence can be managed in the community without any order being imposed, and points to the fact that Mr Thompson is ‘significantly institutionalised.’ He observes that the current period of stable support appears to be short-term and considers that a high support NDIS package is crucial to Mr Thompson’s rehabilitation and adaptation to community living. In Dr Elliott’s opinion a two-year ESO would be appropriate to enable Mr Thompson to gradually move through levels of support. He believes that a three year ESO may engender a sense of hopelessness.

18. [42]

    Dr White is a forensic psychologist and clinical neuropsychologist who assessed the offender via audio-visual link for four hours over two interviews in April 2023. Dr White observed that the defendant has a long criminal history and has diagnoses of antisocial personality disorder, substance use and schizophrenia. He has spent most of his adult life in custody. Throughout the interviews, the defendant was neither defensive nor aggressive, but his responses were often inconsistent, and Dr White believed that he “evinces elements of grandiosity with poor history.”

19. [43]

    Mr Thompson reported that he began hearing four different voices at age 14, which he described as being constants in his life. He initially reported a “healthy” sex drive, but then indicated that it was “below average” when he was challenged about the accuracy of reports that he had masturbated 10 times daily. Currently, he says that his medications “crushed” his libido. The defendant acknowledged searching for pornography on the internet, but said that he no longer was interested and he requested that access be blocked on his phone.

20. [44]

    The defendant disclosed childhood sexual abuse and expressed confusion regarding his sexuality, which he believed stemmed from his history of being assaulted. He denied a sexual interest in children, and later told Dr White he had no sexual interest at all.

21. [45]

    The defendant admitted that he used cannabis in early 2023, having stolen five sachets from his brother, which he smoked until he “greened out” over three days whilst grieving the death of his father.

22. [46]

    The defendant’s account of his criminal history was described by Dr White as suggestive of significant deficits of insight. He denied any history of sexual offending apart from the subject serious offence and said that he could not recall offences involving exposing himself because they were “too long ago.”

23. [47]

    Neuropsychological assessments administered by Dr White indicated that the defendant’s visual based reasoning and auditory attention was average but that his working memory was borderline, and his recall of verbal material was extremely low. Verbal fluency was assessed as “low average.” The defendant’s self-reported measure of mood was consistent with symptoms of extremely severe depression, stress, and anxiety.

24. [48]

    Dr White applied the RSVP-V2 risk assessment tool. This identified Mr Thompson as presenting with a high likelihood of committing further sexual violence and as requiring a high level of effort and intervention to prevent further sexual offending.

25. [49]

    In Dr White’s opinion, although there is some stability in the defendant’s condition by way of accommodation, treatment, and support, in the absence of his current supports, his risk of reoffending is likely to increase. Dr White notes ongoing concerns with the defendant’s fluctuations in mental health, sexual preoccupation, paranoia, hallucinations, and requests to reduce medication, all in the context of significant cognitive and functional difficulties. Dr White assesses the defendant to be within the ‘well above average’ risk category for sexual reoffending, which is consistent with the assessment by Dr Elliott and that reported in the RAR.

26. [50]

    In Dr White’s opinion, Mr Thompson requires a high level of intensive services and supervision to reduce his risk of sexual reoffending. In her view, an ESO of three years would be appropriate.

27. [51]

    Annexed to the affidavit of Jessica Leigh Murty of 4 May 2023 are OIMS documents that have been created since the preliminary judgment, and a Functional Assessment Report of Gemma King, occupational therapist, dated 26 April 2023.

28. [52]

    The OIMS notes disclose that Mr Thompson was given a formal warning for breaching his schedule of movements in April 2023. The defendant was struggling to comply with the ISO.

29. [53]

    Ms King’s assessment was undertaken to support the defendant in his application for an Unscheduled Plan Review with the NDIS, as it was suggested that his current funding package was insufficient to meet his disability related support needs. The assessment was conducted at Mr Thompson’s current residence. Ms King observed that Mr Thompson was not currently funded by the NDIS for supported independent living (SIL), but that he would apply for SIL as part of the Plan Review.

30. [54]

    Ms King observed that Mr Thompson was currently supported in all areas of functioning on a 24/7 basis, which in her view should continue at a 1:1 ratio of support. In her opinion, Mr Thompson does not have the cognitive capacity to live independently in the community in a “safe and durable manner.” She asks the NDIA to consider the complexity of Mr Thompson’s case and provide additional funding to continue support at 1:1 ratio, 24 hours per day.

31. [55]

    A RAR was prepared by Rochelle Pateman, senior psychologist, dated 9 September 2022. Ms Pateman was unable to interview the defendant, but had the benefit of having clinically assessed him over the previous seven years.

32. [56]

    Ms Pateman describes the defendant as presenting with complex needs, including significant mental illness, personality vulnerabilities, institutionalisation, and chronic substance abuse. The defendant was noted to have some treatment resistance and she was of the view that his stability was affected by intermittent substance abuse whilst (then) in custody.

33. [57]

    Ms Pateman noted protective factors such as the defendant having made contact with his family, that he had been approved for NDIS funding and that he had commenced engagement with support services. However, Ms Pateman said that Mr Thompson’s family members appeared to lack insight into the defendant’s risk related issues.

34. [58]

    Mr Thompson’s sexual offending was described by Ms Pateman as ‘non-linear,’ and included targeting people from a range of age groups, gender, and in various locations. His offending appeared to be opportunistic, and he targeted strangers. There were reports of him being sexually abusive toward gaol staff and other inmates, which he denied.

35. [59]

    Ms Pateman noted that the defendant’s institutional incidents records contained many instances of being assessed as at risk of self-harm and suicidality, actual self-harm, paranoia, bizarre behaviour, hallucinations, threats to harm or kill himself or others, abuse, threats and intimidating conduct, property destruction, fighting with other inmates, and the possession of contraband.

36. [60]

    Ms Pateman observed that the last Stable-2007 tool assessment of the defendant, which is used to identify stable dynamic risk factors, returned a score of 16, which suggested a high density of criminogenic needs relative to other male sex offenders. Of particular clinical concern were Mr Thompson’s capacity for relationship stability, impulsivity, poor problem-solving skills, deviant sexual interests, cooperation with supervision, general social rejection, lack of concern for others, negative emotionality, sex drive/preoccupation and sex as coping.

37. [61]

    A Static-99R actuarial risk assessment was performed in November 2020 and returned a score in the high risk category. That category has now been renamed as ‘well above average risk.’ In Ms Pateman’s opinion, the Static-99R assessment remained valid. She combined this tool with the Stable-2007 tool to generate a composite assessment of Mr Thompson’s risk and needs. Ms Pateman was of the view that the defendant is in the ‘well above average’ risk level. However, Ms Pateman reported that it was difficult to assess the defendant’s current level of risk related to sexual pre-occupation due to his (then) current refusal to participate in assessments. Ms Pateman considered that the defendant will require ongoing supports and extrinsic motivations to maintain stability in the community and to reduce his overall risk of reoffending. In her opinion, the most likely risk scenario for reoffending was an opportunistic or impulsive encounter with a stranger of indeterminate age and sex.

38. [62]

    With respect to ongoing supervision, in Ms Pateman’s opinion there were a number of risk-management strategies that could be applied, whether or not an ESO was imposed. Such strategies included psychologist engagement, developing culturally appropriate community supports, the scrutiny of social contacts, unannounced home visits, drug and alcohol testing, the use of electronic monitoring equipment, ensuring compliance with his medication regime and the updating of assessments with respect to his intellectual functioning.

39. [63]

    A RMR was prepared by Mick Glover, Community Corrections Officer dated 18 October 2022. Mr Glover interviewed the defendant by telephone for the purpose of this report.

40. [64]

    At the time of the report, Mr Glover noted that the defendant had commenced living in supported accommodation, funded by his NDIS plan. He observed that Mr Thompson’s understanding during the interview may have been compromised by cognitive or mental health issues. Mr Thompson could only cite drug and alcohol issues when asked to discuss his risks. Mr Glover observed that this appeared to demonstrate that Mr Thompson had limited insight into the nexus between his substance abuse, the subsequent deterioration of his mental health and the consequent increased risk of re-offending.

41. [65]

    Mr Glover proposed several risk management strategies which included weekly contact with a Community Corrections Officer and unannounced home visits, behavioural change therapy, field visits and surveillance, monitoring associations, electronic monitoring and psychological risk management intervention. Further strategies might include a curfew, accommodation and supervision requirements, place and travel restrictions, financial monitoring, abstention conditions, non-association conditions and directions to engage with psychologists and community mental health clinicians.

42. [66]

    The defendant was previously engaged in Alcohol and Other Drug Treatment (Relapse Prevention) in custody. He attended individual alcohol and drug counselling and group therapy, as well as an anger management program.

43. [67]

    The defendant was offered a place into the CUBIT (sex offenders’ therapy) program in 2007, but he refused this offer as he characterised himself as a victim of childhood sexual abuse and did not want to be associated with paedophiles. In 2013, Mr Thompson accepted an offer to participate in a CUBIT program, but his participation was reported as “varied, reflecting the effects of acute mental health symptoms, personality traits and fluctuating motivation.” He was suspended from a second attempt at the program in 2014 after he touched the skirt of an education officer.

44. [68]

    Between November 2014 and November 2015, Mr Thompson participated in the Self-Regulation Program: Sex Offending. During this program, the defendant’s intellectual functioning was assessed as in the low average range, his understanding of concepts was described as “superficial” and he reported experiencing auditory hallucinations. It was noted that he threatened staff, and he provided contradictory information to different people.

45. [69]

    The most significant option available to address Mr Thompson’s risk of reoffending is the continuation of the services he receives from his NDIS package. A funding review is currently underway.

46. [70]

    The plaintiff submits that the defendant’s response to community supervision has been very poor, citing his serial breaching of supervision orders and other post-release arrangements. The index offence occurred one month after his previous sentence had expired.

47. [71]

    Priestley SC DCJ, in his remarks on sentence of 3 April 2020, observed that the defendant was institutionalised, in poor mental health and had a high risk of reoffending.

48. [72]

    The plaintiff points to the defendant’s conduct in custody, i.e., that he has entries for 50 offences between 1999 and 12 June 2021. The defendant has also been reported for sexual behaviour/preoccupation and making inappropriate advances and comments toward staff.

49. [73]

    Mr Thompson has an extensive history of mental ill-health and substance abuse. He tested positive for cannabis use in 2023.

Consideration

1. [74]

   As I have said, Ms Marsden conceded that the court would be satisfied to a high degree of probability that Mr Thompson poses an unacceptable risk of committing another serious offence. She also conceded that Mr Thompson requires supervision and further rehabilitation, and she observes that he will submit to an ESO for these reasons. Submissions were made in writing by Mr Mykkeltvedt that the ESO should be for a term of three years, but he ultimately sought a two year term. There were no extant disputes about conditions by the conclusion of the hearing of the matter, as those disputes had been resolved inter parties. I would have been inclined to make the term of the order for 2 years as suggested by Dr Elliott (rather than 3 years as originally sought by the plaintiff), as he has had a long therapeutic relationship with Mr Thompson and is therefore, in my view, in a better position than Dr White (who was equivocal) to comment on the duration of an ESO and its consequences.

2. [75]

   Given the agreement of the parties, and having regard in particular to the expert evidence, I accept that the pre-conditions in ss 5B(a), 5B(b) and 5B(c) of the HRO Act and the requirements in ss 5H, 5I 6 and 7 of the HRO Act are met. 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 supervision by an ESO. Further, given the agreement of the parties, I am satisfied that the proposed conditions, annexed to this judgment, should be imposed.

Conclusion

1. [76]

   On 2 June 2023, I made the following orders, by consent:

   1. (1)

      I grant leave to the plaintiff to file in court a Second Further Amended Summons.

   2. (2)

      I revoke the order made by Bellew J on 14 December 2022 that the defendant be known by the pseudonym “HT”.

   3. (3)

      I make the orders sought in the SFAS as follows: