Monteiro v State of New South Wales

1. [1]

   The plaintiff, Simon Monteiro, was made subject to a five year extended supervision order (“ESO”) with 26 conditions to it, under the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) (“the Act”) by Fagan J on 6 July 2020: State of New South Wales v Monteiro (Final) [2020] NSWSC 881. Because of subsequent breaches of the ESO and periods of imprisonment, it now expires in February 2027. There is a protracted history of litigation in which the plaintiff has sought release from the obligations of the ESO, of which this decision forms part. This history contextualises the evidence placed before the Court now in support of the plaintiff’s application, pursuant to s 13 of the Act, that the ESO be revoked.

2. [2]

   The judgment of Fagan J sets out the plaintiff’s extensive criminal history and the seriousness of the index aggravated sexual assault offence which gave rise to the power to make the ESO, as well as further criminality surrounding it and the physical and verbal aggression by the plaintiff towards the victim throughout their brief relationship, prior to his sexual assault of her. His Honour’s judgment sets out the psychiatric evidence and risk assessment reports which were part of the body of evidence supporting the requisite finding to make the ESO; namely, satisfaction, to a high degree of probability that the plaintiff posed an unacceptable risk of committing another serious offence if not kept under supervision under an ESO. His Honour set out other evidence adduced by the State of New South Wales, the defendant in the current proceedings (sometimes “the State”) and the moving party before Fagan J, required to be taken into account under the Act. His Honour described the evidence relied on by the plaintiff, and provided comprehensive reasons for his determination to make the ESO.

3. [3]

   The evidence accepted by his Honour demonstrated that the plaintiff meets the criteria for a severe personality disorder (narcissistic personality disorder and antisocial personality disorder, or personality disorder with narcissistic, antisocial and borderline traits) with a high loading of psychopathic traits and a pathological level of denial of his past offending and risk factors. The evidence his Honour acted upon demonstrated the plaintiff’s personality traits are entrenched and unlikely to change in the short term or at all, that he fell within the highest category of risk for re-offending, with the most likely scenario for a “serious offence” being a sexual offence against an intimate partner. An additional risk factor established by this evidence was the plaintiff’s capacity to ingratiate himself with potential intimate partners and superficially present as pleasant and law abiding, with the greatest risk to a future intimate partner, but a present risk in relation to any female he meets and spends time with. The evidence demonstrated that an important aspect of any ESO would be the monitoring of the plaintiff’s movements and future relationships.

4. [4]

   Initially after the imposition of the ESO there was an attempted appeal to the Court of Appeal, which is available as of right under s 22 of the Act if made within 28 days of the determination and with leave thereafter. Such appeal may be on a question of law, a question of fact or a question of mixed law and fact. On 4 August 2020 the plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal against the orders made by Fagan J.

5. [5]

   On 18 August 2020, the plaintiff was arrested and charged with three counts of failing to comply with his ESO contrary to s 12 of the Act. He was refused bail, and on 14 September 2020 the plaintiff was charged with a further 38 counts of failing to comply with his ESO contrary to s 12 of the Act.

6. [6]

   On 16 September 2020 the appeal proceedings were listed for hearing on 3 November 2020 and timetabling orders were made for the filing and service of evidence. On 30 September 2020 the hearing date of 3 November 2020 was vacated. The matter was subsequently adjourned to enable the plaintiff to pursue an application for Legal Aid and to allow him to be sentenced in respect of the failures to comply with the ESO.

7. [7]

   On 16 June 2021 the plaintiff was sentenced by Bright DCJ in respect of a number of charges of failing to comply with the ESO – some on indictment, taking into account others on a Form 1 document under s 32 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), and some on a certificate pursuant to s 166 of that Act. Her Honour imposed an aggregate term of imprisonment of 2 years and 8 months, with a non-parole period of 2 years, to commence on 18 August 2020 when the plaintiff was first arrested: R v Monteiro [2021] NSWDC 340.

8. [8]

   Following his sentencing for the breaches, the appeal proceedings were adjourned on a number of occasions to allow the plaintiff to pursue an application to issue subpoenas to various persons, including “Corrective Services NSW”, “Justice Health and NSW” and “The proper officer, NSW Police”, requiring the production of certain material. I note that throughout these reasons Corrective Services NSW (“CSNSW”) and Community Corrections are used somewhat interchangeably, generally in accordance with the relevant piece of evidence or submission being addressed.

9. [9]

   In September 2021 the plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal in the Court of Criminal Appeal (“CCA”) in respect of his sentence for the breaches of the ESO.

10. [10]

    On 12 November 2021, the plaintiff’s Notice of Motion for the issue of the subpoenas in the ESO appeal proceedings was dismissed and the matter was listed for directions on 17 November 2021. On that date, as the plaintiff sought to appeal the decision of the Registrar which had been unfavourable to him as to the subpoenas, he was directed to file any further motion in relation to the issue of subpoenas by 1 December 2021. On 1 December 2021 the Court of Appeal proceedings were adjourned to 23 February 2022 for further directions.

11. [11]

    The CCA appeal was originally due to be heard on 9 February 2022 but this was relisted for 17 June 2022 as the grounds expanded. The CCA heard an application for bail on 9 February 2022. It became apparent that the bail application required consideration of the merit of the severity appeal, with a requirement to demonstrate “special or exceptional circumstances” that did not apply in relation to determination of the severity appeal itself, such that the substance of the application for leave to appeal was determined. The CCA made orders on 17 February 2022 which resulted in the plaintiff’s release from custody: Monteiro v R [2022] NSWCCA 37. The plaintiff was granted leave to appeal and resentenced on successfully arguing that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The Court sentenced the plaintiff to an aggregate fixed term of 18 months imprisonment, commencing on 18 August 2020 and expiring on 17 February 2022.

12. [12]

    The Court at [39]-[41] explained that the breaches were of conditions that facilitate supervision. They went to the use of a different name; the use of electronic equipment; and the use of programs of a kind that were either prohibited or not approved by the plaintiff’s supervising officer. The Court concluded that while compliance with such conditions is important, where they were not related to serious offending (either the commission of it or in preparation of it, nor increasing the risk of serious offending) it was not correct for the sentencing judge to assess their objective seriousness as in the “mid-range”. The Court took the view that the offences were not at the lowest level, but well below mid-range.

13. [13]

    At [44] the Court found that because the offences went to the heart of the supervision process, and amounted to a significant impediment to the supervision process being fully implemented, the requirement of s 5 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) for determination that no penalty other than imprisonment is appropriate, before a court sentences an offender to imprisonment, was satisfied. In resentencing the plaintiff the Court nominated indicative sentences for each of the offences on indictment and the s 166 certificate, after 25% discount for the guilty pleas, of between 2 months and 12 months imprisonment. At [50] the Court recorded its determination that “Applying the principle of totality, and bearing in mind that any parole period and the conditions on parole would be less restrictive than the conditions imposed as a result of the ESO, we would impose a fixed sentence, with no parole period, of 18 months’ imprisonment.” This is consistent with the general understanding that a fixed term of imprisonment corresponds with the non-parole period that would be appropriate.

14. [14]

    In the preparation for the CCA appeal, the plaintiff sought orders for production of documents, seemingly directed towards attacking the imposition of the ESO, which application was rejected by Beech-Jones CJ at CL as misconceived: Re Application by Simon Monteiro [2022] NSWCCA 10. His Honour said this at [8]:

15. [15]

    On 23 February 2022, the ESO appeal proceedings were adjourned to 21 March 2022 for directions with a notation that a motion in relation to the issue of subpoenas would be filed. On 21 March 2022 the Registrar made orders that the ESO appeal proceedings be listed for directions on 27 April 2022. The plaintiff was directed to file written submissions by 20 April 2022. At the directions hearing on 27 April 2022 the plaintiff did not appear, and no written submissions had been filed. The matter was stood over for further directions to 1 June 2022 and the plaintiff was further directed to file and serve written submissions by 25 May 2022. An order was also made for the Registry to issue a notice under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (“UCPR”) r 13.6 directed to Mr Monteiro to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed or struck out for his non-attendance at the directions hearing of 27 April 2022.

16. [16]

    The plaintiff did not file written submissions by 25 May 2022. On 1 June 2022 the Registrar ordered that the plaintiff’s submissions be filed and served by 6 July 2022 and stood the matter over for further directions on 11 July 2022 for the plaintiff to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for want of due despatch. The Registrar also made an order that, if the plaintiff’s submissions were not filed by 6 July 2022, he was to file and serve an affidavit by 7 July 2022 outlining why the appeal should not be dismissed for want of due despatch. A further order was made for the Registry to issue a notice under r 13.6 of the UCPR directing the plaintiff to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed or struck out for his non-attendance at the directions on 1 June 2022.

17. [17]

    The plaintiff did not comply with the direction for written submissions and did not file any affidavit explaining why the appeal should not be dismissed in accordance with the orders made on 1 June 2022. On 11 July 2022, the matter was listed for hearing before Meagher JA in the Court of Appeal. On 15 July 2022, his Honour delivered judgment and made orders directing the plaintiff to file and serve any Notice of Motion asking that the Court receive additional evidence on the hearing of the appeal, any affidavit evidence relied on as establishing the grounds for the Notice of Motion, any evidence which the plaintiff wanted the Court to receive on the hearing of the appeal, an amended Notice of Appeal which included a statement of the specific grounds relied on in support of the appeal in accordance with r 51.18(1)(e) of the UCPR, and written submissions in support of the appeal by 15 September 2022. His Honour also made guillotine orders dismissing the appeal in the event that such written submissions and an amended Notice of Appeal were not filed by 15 September 2022: Monteiro v State of New South Wales [2022] NSWCA 126. His Honour at [30] described the following occurrence:

18. [18]

    No further material was filed by 15 September 2022, and the guillotine order came into effect.

19. [19]

    A previous Notice of Motion seeking revocation pursuant to s 13 of the Act was filed on 20 October 2021. The proceedings were dismissed for want of due despatch by Bellew J on 4 November 2022: Monteiro v Commissioner of Corrective Services and Justice Health and Forensic Mental Health Network; Monteiro v State of NSW [2022] NSWSC 1489.

20. [20]

    The current proceedings have their genesis from December 2023. There are problems on the face of the originating documents included in the Court Book with their dates. For example a summons in the Court Book, stamped by the Court as filed on 7 December 2023, has the signature of the plaintiff’s legal representative at the time on 12 December 2023 and the affidavit of the plaintiff in support dated 15 December 2023. The evidence for the defendant indicates that the summons was filed in this Court on or about 15 December 2023. The relief claimed in that summons is:

21. [21]

    In another summons contained in the Court Book which has a signature on it dated 18 December 2023, but which does not have a filing stamp, the relief claimed is:

22. [22]

    The 7 February 2024 affidavit of Johanna Fisher, solicitor, read for the defendant in the current proceedings, indicates that on 18 December 2023 Weinstein J determined to list the matter for further hearing on 12 and 13 February 2024 and made timetabling orders in relation to the proceedings. These were not complied with by the plaintiff. Ms Fisher’s affidavit of 13 December 2024 describes the vacation of those proceedings on the plaintiff’s application, by consent. Ms Fisher describes multiple case management orders made by Button, Yehia and Garling JJ in the first half of 2024, including the listing of the matter for a two day hearing on 21 May 2024, which was vacated. For at least some of this time the plaintiff was legally represented. The plaintiff in the meantime had sought to issue 38 subpoenas to various persons and agencies for the production of documents and to compel their attendance at the 21 May 2024 hearing. The Registrar’s refusal to grant leave to issue all bar two came before Harrison CJ at CL for review on 1 July 2024.

23. [23]

    The final amended summons at Court Book page 421 seeks the following relief:

24. [24]

    Leave was granted to the plaintiff by Harrison CJ at CL to file that document in Court on 1 July 2024: Monteiro v State of New South Wales [2024] NSWSC 864 at [9]. In his Honour’s reasons for decision at [12], he indicated that he understood the plaintiff by that time wished to prosecute at least the following claims:

    1. (1)

       An order that the extended supervision order made on 6 July 2020 be revoked.

    2. (2)

       Further or in the alternative, by reason of the matters that were before Fagan J, an order that the extended supervision order made on 6 July 2020 is invalid and of no force or effect.

    3. (3)

       In the alternative to order (2), a declaration that the extended supervision order made on 6 July 2020 is constitutionally invalid.

    4. (4)

       Damages for personal injuries, including psychological injuries, loss of enjoyment of life and loss of income caused or occasioned to him by reason of the mode of application and enforcement of the conditions of his extended supervision order made on 6 July 2020.

    5. (5)

       Damages for personal injuries, including psychological injuries, loss of enjoyment of life and loss of income caused or occasioned to him by reason of the illegal and improper treatment of him whilst an inmate of the New South Wales prison system.

25. [25]

    The plaintiff had filed in late 2023 a Statement of Claim in relation to his alleged treatment in custody (and seemingly also in the community while subject to parole and the ESO), which is not being heard with his application under s 13 of the Act for revocation of the ESO. The Statement of Claim is not in evidence in the current proceedings.

26. [26]

    The plaintiff was in custody bail refused between 7 and 22 August 2024 for alleged breaches of the ESO which are still undetermined. On 4 November 2024 the solicitor for the defendant filed a Notice of Motion seeking to separate the application for revocation of the ESO from the civil claim for damages. By way of a Notice of Motion served on the defendant by email on 20 November 2024 the plaintiff sought interlocutory determination of his request for revocation of specific conditions. On 28 November 2024 Garling J ordered that the following question be heard and decided separately from all other questions and before the hearing of any further trial in the proceedings, namely: “Whether the extended supervision order imposed by this Court (Fagan J on 6.7.2020) should be varied in part or revoked in whole as sought by Notice of Motion served by the plaintiff on the defendant by email on 20.11.2024.” His Honour ordered that the claim for interlocutory relief in respect of that separate question as articulated in the Notice of Motion served by the plaintiff on 20 November 2024 be fixed for hearing on 19 December 2024 for a maximum of one day. Various orders for amended statements of claim and related issues pertaining to the civil damages claim, and management of those proceedings, were made. His Honour made orders in relation to the filing and service of material for the interlocutory application.

27. [27]

    Garling J heard the interlocutory application on 19 December 2024 and on 20 December 2024 made orders varying the ESO, included the deletion of condition 4 which required the plaintiff to submit to electronic monitoring as directed: Monteiro v State NSW [2024] NSWSC 1667. As will be seen below, the State seeks the rescission of these orders or alternatively the reimposition of the order removed or varied by his Honour.

28. [28]

    His Honour fixed for hearing on 5 May 2025, with an estimate of 3 days, the plaintiff’s application for revocation of the ESO. Significant timetabling was ordered for the filing of evidence and submissions. His Honour made a referral for pro bono assistance for the plaintiff in connection with his civil damages proceedings. No evidence was filed or served for the plaintiff by 28 February 2025 as Garling J had ordered. The State filed the evidence it intended to rely upon on 4 April 2025 in accordance with those orders. An affidavit of a woman who has been given the pseudonym Jane in these proceedings, dated 1 May 2025, was served by the plaintiff on the defendant on 2 May 2025. An affidavit by a woman who has been afforded the pseudonym Joanne was sworn on 5 May 2025, and it was filed and served. The hearing of 5 May 2025 was vacated on the application of the plaintiff. It was relisted for hearing on 25 to 27 August.

29. [29]

    On 3 June 2025 Campbell J vacated the hearing date of 25 August 2025. This was on the application of the plaintiff as new lawyers had been recently instructed. On 5 June 2025 Campbell J made orders in chambers by consent including that the plaintiff file and serve any evidence and submissions by 8 August 2025. The defendant’s evidence and submissions were to be filed by 5 September, and any evidence or submissions in reply for the plaintiff were to be filed by 15 September 2025. A working folder of material to be tendered at the hearing was to be provided to the judicial officer to hear the matter by the defendant by 4:00 pm 17 September 2025.

30. [30]

    The plaintiff’s aunt and uncle in Queensland swore affidavits on 19 August 2025. The State chronology says these were filed on 22 August 2025. Written submissions under the hand of senior and junior counsel for the plaintiff, dated 22 August 2025, were filed and served. On 12 September 2025 McNaughton J granted leave to the plaintiff’s last retained legal representatives to withdraw.

31. [31]

    On 15 September 2025 Chen J made orders in his capacity as Duty Judge, addressing the plaintiff’s Notice of Motion of the same date, extending the time for the plaintiff to file and serve evidence and submissions in reply to 18 September 2025 at 4:00 pm. The plaintiff’s applications pursuant to the same Notice of Motion for leave to issue subpoenas and produce documents were stood over by his Honour to the Duty Judge on 17 September 2025. His Honour directed the State, if possible, to provide a short summary outlining its position regarding these notices as well as the procedural history of the matter.

32. [32]

    The Court Book was provided to my Associate on the morning of 17 September 2025 by agreement. In circumstances where the plaintiff had seemingly only filed four affidavits in the proceedings (his aunt and uncle, and the May 2025 affidavits of Jane and Joanne) the State included these, the written submissions of senior and junior counsel filed for the plaintiff in August 2025, three sets of written submissions relied upon by the plaintiff before Garling J when he was self-represented, as well as all the affidavits and exhibits relied upon by the plaintiff in the proceedings before Garling J, lest he proposed to rely upon any of this material as well. Also included in the Court Books were the transcript of a number of Court proceedings in which the plaintiff has been involved, in case either party wished to tender any of this.

33. [33]

    On 17 September 2025 Wright J, in his capacity as Duty Judge, stood the hearing of the applications to issue subpoenas and produce documents over to be determined in the substantive hearing listed to commence before me on 22 September 2025.

34. [34]

    As I placed on the record at the commencement of the hearing on 22 September 2025, the plaintiff filed and served an affidavit under his name and a set of written submissions by 4:00 pm on Thursday 18 September 2025, the extended time ordered by Chen J. Although these were not strictly in reply, these documents have been read and considered to the extent they are relevant and admissible, as outlined below.

35. [35]

    However further to this the plaintiff left at the Registry a large tub of documents, apparently seeking assistance with photocopying the following day. This tub was collected by the plaintiff on Friday 19 September 2025 at my suggestion, and advice was forwarded to him that anything within the tub that he wished to tender would be addressed on Monday 22 September in Court.

36. [36]

    The plaintiff additionally left with the Registry two large lever arch folders of material, a large bull-clipped bundle of documents and a manila folder stated to contain references. These were initially erroneously understood when brought to me by officers of the Registry on Friday 19 September 2025 to be Court folders of filed material. When it transpired that this was not the case, this was brought to the plaintiff’s attention on 22 September 2025. One of these large folders and the large bull-clipped bundle inside it was the subject of my ruling excluding the proposed tender of material on 23 September 2025 and returned to the plaintiff. The other folder and manila folder were not referred to during the hearing before me, and were collected by the plaintiff or his representative from the Court later in the week of the hearing.

37. [37]

    A purported link to documents was also sent by email on behalf of the plaintiff to the Court and the legal representatives of the defendant after hours on Thursday 18 September 2025 but it was inaccessible to the Court or the defendant.

38. [38]

    Forwarded to my Associate electronically on the afternoon of Sunday 21 September 2025, copying in the defendant, were 12 emails each with an annexure, attaching collectively over 1,000 pages of documents. Opening the first two of these annexures indicated a mix of documents which were duplicates of material in the Court Book, multiple copies of the same (additional) documents, and documents with no apparent relevance. As I indicated in Court on 22 September 2025, I had not reviewed in any way anything beyond the first two such annexures before proceedings commenced that morning.

39. [39]

    The defendant by Notice of Motion filed 4 April 2025 seeks the following orders:

    1. (1)

       The orders made on 20 December 2024, to vary on an interlocutory basis the conditions of the ESO against the plaintiff on 6 July 2020, is rescinded.

    2. (2)

       In the alternative to order 1, pursuant to ss 11 and / or 13 of the Act, conditions 4, 8, 13, 18 and 23 deleted by order on 20 December 2024 be reimposed and conditions 15, 16, 19, 21, and 22 be varied to reflect their formulation as existed before the variation effected by the order on 20 December 2024.

    3. (3)

       Such further or other orders as the Court considers appropriate.

40. [40]

    It is apparent from uncontradicted aspects of the defendant’s evidence and written submissions before me, statements made from the bar table by the plaintiff during the hearing, and the judgment of Garling J in relation to a claim of public interest immunity giving rise to redaction of certain documents provided to the plaintiff by that point in time in Monteiro v State of New South Wales [2025] NSWSC 235, that the plaintiff has been provided with many thousands of pages of documents of the kind he was previously seeking by way of subpoenas, and which do not form part of the evidence tendered by the defendant in the current proceedings.

41. [41]

    Proceedings in connection with the above described application by the defendant, and the plaintiff’s application under s 13 of the Act that the ESO be revoked, commenced before me on 22 September 2025 and various occurrences since Thursday 18 September 2025 were placed on the record. I received the defendant’s evidence, mostly without objection. The plaintiff objected to the defendant’s tender of case notes without the authors attending for cross-examination, and the tendering of the reports of Dr Eagle and Dr Furst that were in evidence before Fagan J, but I over-ruled those objections. It was at that stage expected that the defendant’s witnesses EM and Dr Richard Parker would attend the following day for cross-examination once the evidence for the plaintiff had been identified. The plaintiff later withdrew his request for those witnesses to be made available for cross-examination.

42. [42]

    I commenced receiving evidence for the plaintiff, mostly provisionally to save the time of reviewing it in Court, to be the subject of submissions as to admissibility after the receipt of evidence was concluded. The plaintiff was permitted to make some opening remarks regarding what he expected the evidence would reveal. A 16 page document headed “Table of Contents” forwarded electronically to the Court and the defendant on the afternoon of 22 September was marked MFI 15 the following morning. It provided some assistance in forecasting the documents the plaintiff was proposing to tender, after it was confirmed by him that the material the defendant had included in the Court Book (relied upon by the plaintiff before Garling J) was relied upon by him, and I indicated that it would be provisionally read and admitted, subject to argument as to admissibility in closing submissions. The plaintiff identified multiple further affidavits of his which he wished to read, as well as a number of documentary exhibits, moving a small way through the documents listed in MFI 15. No issue was taken by the defendant or the Court with the non-compliance with Court orders as to filing and serving this evidence, and they were read provisionally on the same basis.

43. [43]

    On the afternoon of 22 September and morning of 23 September 2025 an area of proposed tender was determined by me to require a more rigorous approach than provisional tender, given the volume of documents involved and the discrete issue presented; namely, the extent to which I was prepared to consider detail of outstanding criminal charges against the plaintiff and Joanne, and further allegations allegedly made by Joanne about the plaintiff, for the purpose of these proceedings. I delivered ex tempore reasons refusing to admit this body of evidence after the morning adjournment on 23 September 2025. The Court continued to receive affidavits read by the plaintiff and evidence tendered by him, provisionally.

44. [44]

    Just before lunch on 23 September 2025 the plaintiff came to topic 11 in MFI 15, headed “CSNSW – Conspiring with my brothers.” The corresponding documents were received for the purpose of determining admissibility, and because they also seemed to relate to the outstanding application of the plaintiff that Detective GB be required to attend the proceedings to be cross-examined. I have used that officer’s initials not because there is a non-publication order in place to protect him, as there are for a number of people who were potential witnesses or mentioned in the evidence, as a result of earlier orders of the Court. I have simply determined that given the wide-reaching allegations aired by the plaintiff in these proceedings there is merit in referring to most people by their initials.

45. [45]

    The plaintiff was asked to consider over lunch on 23 September 2025 any further aspects of the evidence already adduced, or further evidence, he would wish for me to take into account in determining his outstanding application regarding Detective GB. Two documents were forwarded electronically to the Court over the lunch break – one the plaintiff’s affidavit of 3 May 2024 which was already in the Court Book and thus provisionally read, and another document headed as an affidavit, undated and unsworn, which I have marked MFI 28.

46. [46]

    Submissions were made after lunch on 23 September 2025 by the plaintiff on the two related issues of the admissibility of the material in topic 11 of the Table of Contents, and the requirement for Detective GB to give evidence. I indicated that I rejected the tender of the documents in category 11, and would provide reasons the following morning. I sought further submissions regarding the compulsory attendance of Detective GB. Before long the plaintiff indicated that he was “getting very close to asking for an application to recuse.” The plaintiff was offered time to consider this issue, but continued to make submissions for a short while.

47. [47]

    The plaintiff sought that I make a decision on the tender of one document in the Court Book which had been provisionally admitted, which was exhibit O before Garling J. I indicated a preference to deal with that once I had an understanding of the totality of the evidence the plaintiff relied upon, and hearing submissions, as I could see no relevance in it on the material I had perused. I indicated to the plaintiff that on the submissions he had made I was not going to order the attendance of Detective GB, but asked him to advance submissions regarding the other outstanding procedural notices. The plaintiff asked for and was provided a ten minute adjournment.

48. [48]

    On resumption, before the reading or tendering of the plaintiff’s evidence had concluded, or closing submissions for either party made, the plaintiff indicated that he would no longer participate in the proceedings. As noted above, the evidence for the State had already been read and tendered in his presence before that occurrence. He stated “So I’ve had enough now. I’ll be leaving now, whatever I have to deal with I’ll deal with conflicts of interest in the future and on an appeal and that’s all I’m going to have to say.” It was confirmed while the plaintiff remained in Court that the two outstanding applications were still before me, and that he did not wish to adduce any additional evidence or make any submissions in relation to them, and did not wish to remain to hear the oral submissions for the defendant. Proceedings were adjourned to 24 September 2025 to enable the State to consolidate its closing submissions based on the evidence ultimately before the Court.

49. [49]

    An email to my Associate after Court, and an email to the chambers of the Chief Judge at Common Law and my Associate the following morning, sent on behalf of the plaintiff, suggested that I was required to disqualify myself or be removed from the case. The plaintiff did not attend to make any such application on the morning of 24 September 2025 but to the extent that I was on notice of such a suggestion having been made, I determined to dismiss it and proceed to finalise the hearing, which occurred in the absence of the plaintiff. I reserved my decision. This correspondence was tendered by the defendant.

50. [50]

    After I reserved judgment a number of further emails were sent on behalf of the plaintiff, to the chambers of the Chief Judge at Common Law copying in my Associate. These have been marked for identification but disregarded for the purposes of my determination.

Statutory framework

1. [51]

   The plaintiff’s application for revocation of an ESO is brought pursuant to s 13 of the Act. It is in the following terms:

2. [52]

   The making of an ESO is governed by ss 5B and 9(1)(a) of the Act. Those sections provide as follows:

3. [53]

   The power to make an ESO pursuant to s 5B is discretionary. In that regard, the Court is guided by the objects of the Act, and the paramount consideration and matters set out in s 9 to which the Court must have regard in determining whether or not to make an ESO. Relevant provisions of the Act in these respects include the following:

4. [54]

   A “serious offence” is defined in s 4 of the Act and includes a “serious sex offence” and a “serious violence offence”.

5. [55]

   Section 5D of the Act provides that the Court is not required to determine that the risk of an offender committing a serious offence is more likely than not in order to determine that there is an unacceptable risk of the person committing such an offence.

6. [56]

   Section 21 of the Act provides that proceedings under this Act are civil proceedings and, to the extent to which the Act does not provide for their conduct, are to be conducted in accordance with the law (including the rules of evidence) relating to civil proceedings. Section 25(3) of the Act provides for the admissibility of certain documents obtained under s 25 of the Act by the Attorney General.

The plaintiff’s evidence

1. [57]

   The plaintiff tendered photographs showing the vegetable garden he previously maintained in the community as referred to in a number of affidavits. He tendered documents confirming enrolment in 2014 whilst he was in custody in a Graduate Diploma of Aviation (Human Factors), enrolment in a TAFE Digital Diploma of Project Management due to be undertaken between March 2020 and February 2021, and enrolment in trimester 2 of 2025 in the Griffin University bachelor of business. He tendered a civil aviation medical certificate relevant to a commercial pilot license valid to 12 April 2020 (class 1) and 12 April 2022 (class 2), following a medical examination on 12 April 2019.

2. [58]

   The plaintiff sought to read a large number of his own affidavits, in addition to those already in the Court Book and that sworn or affirmed on 18 September 2025. He identified particular affidavits, mostly previously filed in other proceedings, which each had a label “2” and a letter of the alphabet (up to 2AA), in general accordance with category or topic 2 of his Table of Contents, MFI 15 (but not including all of those there listed). It was identified that some of these were within the second of the two email annexures forwarded to the Court on the afternoon of Sunday 21 September 2025, which had been printed; and the affidavits otherwise were handed to the Court and shown to Senior Counsel for the defendant for consideration. It was determined that these affidavits would be provisionally read, but that, additionally to any orthodox issues of admissibility, there would need to be some care to reject or otherwise control aspects of these documents that were scandalous. I will deal with some of these affidavits in general terms shortly, and otherwise note aspects of them of potential relevance to particular topics thereafter. The plaintiff’s three affidavits in the Court Book (those before Garling J sworn/affirmed 3 May, 1 August and 20 November 2024), and his 18 September 2025 affidavit, were similarly read provisionally, and require control for scandalous material.

3. [59]

   Rule 4.15 of the UCPR, is in the following terms:

4. [60]

   The State has identified in MFI 23 specific aspects of a number of documents relied upon by the plaintiff which it submits come within the terms of r 4.15. In almost all respects I accept that contention. The identified passages appear in affidavits of the plaintiff, and written submissions. I regard the fact of the plaintiff making these assertions as generally relevant, but the content itself scandalous, vexatious and irrelevant. Unless I indicate otherwise, I admit this evidence but limit its use pursuant to s 136 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) to the fact that the plaintiff has made these assertions, and direct that unredacted versions of these documents be placed in a sealed envelope not to be opened other than by order of the Court, and that the copy of the documents maintained on the Court file be redacted to exclude the relevant material.

5. [61]

   A large portion of the plaintiff’s affidavit of 12 January 2022, labelled 2G, relates to contentions about the propriety of his convictions for breaching the ESO, and the conduct of his legal representatives in those proceedings. This affidavit was filed in the CCA proceedings, and, as the CCA noted, these collateral attacks on the convictions were not relevant to its determination of the plaintiff’s severity appeal. The plaintiff has contended that he proposes to appeal against those convictions. I reject as irrelevant the plaintiff’s evidence which goes to the validity of his guilty pleas in connection with the breaches of the ESO. The entirety of this affidavit was objected to on the grounds of relevance. Except to the extent that I mention aspects of this affidavit, I uphold that objection. To the extent that objection is taken to part of it as being in the nature of submissions, I take it into account as representing the plaintiff’s submissions so much of it as advances his case.

6. [62]

   Another affidavit of 12 January 2022 labelled 2H is objected to as irrelevant. I uphold this objection insofar as it relates to the integrity of the plaintiff’s guilty pleas to the ESO breach offences, noting again that this affidavit was filed in the CCA. Paragraphs [8]-[12] are relevant to the fact of the plaintiff issuing threats and demonstration of vindictiveness, but are scandalous and will be redacted from the copy of the affidavit kept on the Court file and limited as noted above. The plaintiff also threatens to advise the Chinese Communist Party, via his contacts, of the alleged information he has about judicial officers. I similarly limit the use of these paragraphs to the fact that the plaintiff has so alleged and threatened, but this does not require redaction.

7. [63]

   The plaintiff’s affidavit of 12 January 2022 labelled 2I is objected to as irrelevant, and again a portion is objected to pursuant to r 4.15 of the UCPR, on the basis that the content is scandalous, vexatious or irrelevant. I propose to address these objections by reference to an affidavit affirmed on 1 November 2021 and labelled 2U which is otherwise in identical terms, but can be seen to have been produced earlier in time. This affidavit is primarily concerned with complaints about former legal representatives in the ESO proceedings before Fagan J. Otherwise it includes complaints about the conditions of the plaintiff’s incarceration which are relevant, if at all, to his civil damages claim which is not before me. There is further material in the nature of submissions.

8. [64]

   I have taken into account on the plaintiff’s application to produce documents (a mobile telephone) the representation in this affidavit that he filmed the psychiatric interview with Dr Eagle, but otherwise reject it as irrelevant to the proceedings before me with the following exceptions. I admit the plaintiff’s statement in this document that:

9. [65]

   Although this statement is partly in the nature of a submission it is also evidence that, if accepted, could rationally affect (directly or indirectly) the assessment of the probability of the existence of a fact in issue in the proceedings. I otherwise uphold the State’s objection to this affidavit. I uphold the objection under r 4.15 of the UCPR to the second last paragraph on page 3 of this affidavit which will be redacted and limited in its use. The affidavit in identical terms but with a different date, labelled 2I, is rejected as it is the same bar the label and date, as indicated above.

10. [66]

    The plaintiff’s affidavit dated 12 January 2022, labelled 2M, is rejected as irrelevant in its entirety. It includes a variety of complaints about his former legal representatives. It was filed in the CCA on the plaintiff’s severity appeal (where he sought to collaterally attack the convictions, which was not permitted).

11. [67]

    General criticisms of Corrective Services and police, of no relevance to this case, are excluded. These include the contents of the plaintiff’s affidavit dated 12 January 2022 labelled 2N. I admit as relevant, but limit the use of, the plaintiff’s assertion on page 2 of that affidavit that “This is the gang NSW Court judges choose to side with in almost all cases before the courts”, and that the plaintiff intends to make the Chinese government aware of the wilfully blind Court in Australia. Insofar as the document otherwise refers to the alleged conduct of particular members of the legal profession and threatens to expose the same to the Chinese Communist Party, I limit the use of the evidence and will redact the version maintained on the Court file. I admit as relevant, but limit the use of, the plaintiff’s statement “Either thrown CSNSW to the wolves where they belong, or I will dedicate my life to exposing the scumbaggery of the Supreme Court et al, and there are plenty of skeletons in the closet of the Supreme Court.” I similarly admit and limit the plaintiff’s statement that he will pay others to do his bidding in “exposing swines” to avoid media repercussions to himself, and his threat to handwrite what he has to say and leave it in property he will leave in an outside area, which he expects will result in publication.

12. [68]

    The plaintiff’s affidavit dated 12 January 2022 labelled 2J contains general assertions as to his positive lifestyle before incarceration (on 18 August 2020, it would seem in context) including safely piloting helicopters and aeroplanes, receiving positive feedback from members of the community, engaging in lawful endeavours, developing a WHS accident prevention model as a thesis for a Masters-Degree study pathway with Swinburne University of Technology (in which he was said to be enrolled, but presently deferred), developing an environmental preservations documentary film project with others (called “GIGO”), maintaining friendships, creating a community garden for those experiencing economic hardship or compromised health, evolving as a human being including via various teachings including that of the Lord Buddha, Anthony Robbins’ text “Unlimited Power” and transcendental meditation, yoga theory and yoga asanas. He states that he carefully considered his thoughts, speech and actions prior to engaging, avoided being impulsive, cared for the elderly generally and cared for his father. He states that in the community he was “not, in any way behaving or conducting myself in a way that could possibly be described as being an unacceptable risk, or indeed a risk at any level. I was maintaining the position of being a careful and considered member of the community.”

13. [69]

    I am prepared to admit, subject to weight, the plaintiff’s representations as to what he has done and thought. I do not admit his statements as to feedback from others as it is hearsay.

14. [70]

    The plaintiff states in this affidavit, in a passage to which objection is taken on the grounds of relevance, “The absolutely horrific way in which the police and Corrective Services NSW (“CSNSW”) have falsely portrayed me is provable to have no substance and accordingly, the court should give very little weight to it.” Other than as an example of the generalised way in which the plaintiff’s evidence and submissions are framed, I can place no weight on this. A further affidavit dated 12 January 2022 but labelled 2Q is in precisely the same terms (bar that label) and is rejected.

15. [71]

    The first 9 paragraphs of the plaintiff’s affidavit of 12 January 2022 labelled 2T, relied on in support of appeals bail in the CCA, are inadmissible and rejected. The plaintiff’s statement in paragraph [10] of the same affidavit that he is not impulsive, harbouring a lack of concern for others, prone to negative emotionality, incapable of cooperation with supervision, incapable of relationship stability or a psychopath is admitted but carries very little weight. His statement within that paragraph that “Police/Crown and CSNSW all have hidden and withheld all positive feedback from females and independent witnesses” is not only unspecific thus affecting adversely understanding its relevance, but also, if based on anything he was in fact told, is hearsay. I limit its use to the fact that the plaintiff makes the allegation in this document.

16. [72]

    The plaintiff’s representations under his point 11 in this affidavit called “False Allegations of Threatening to Kill Judges” is not admitted as it is directed towards an alleged case note dated 20 May 2019 created by EM which the State does not rely upon and is not otherwise in evidence, and includes hearsay evidence on pages 3, 4 and the top of page 5 of the affidavit in the plaintiff’s account of his response to it. The same applies to the plaintiff’s assertion in his affidavit of 18 September 2025 at [10](xliii) that this case note is false.

17. [73]

    Otherwise page 5 of the affidavit, from the first full paragraph to the end of the page and over to the partial paragraph at the top of page 6, is objected to by the defendant under r 4.15 of the UCPR. These portions are admitted and limited in their use to the fact that the plaintiff has made these allegations in this affidavit, and sought to use them in these proceedings, and redacted. An affidavit dated 14 January 2022 and labelled 2V is in identical terms save for those differences of date and label, and is rejected.

18. [74]

    The plaintiff’s 38 page affidavit of 3 May 2024 was included by the defendant in the Court Book, as it was in evidence before Garling J, and read provisionally after the plaintiff indicated he wished to rely upon it. I refer below at [208] to a portion of paragraph [12] of that affidavit. Paragraphs [13]-[22], and the bullet points in paragraphs [23] and [24] up to page 489 in the Court Book, and pages 492 to 494 of the Court Book are irrelevant to these proceedings. There may be some relevance to his civil proceedings for damages. Within those pages there are two references to false case notes, directed primarily to the plaintiff’s time in custody but also referring to a Community Corrections case note regarding intention to stage violent revolution and kill judges which is not relied upon by the State, as I indicated above.

19. [75]

    The content following the bullet point half way down the page on Court Book page 489 relates to the plaintiff’s time on parole, and is also hearsay. I will not take this material into account. The first bullet point on Court Book page 490 alleges an unreasonable refusal of attendance at an appointment in 2023. This affidavit at Court Book page 491 asserts an allegedly unreasonable direction by CS which was immediately overruled, following which CS was removed as the plaintiff’s case manager. I am not able to make anything of these directions. The plaintiff’s account of contact between this officer and Jane (who is referred to extensively below), her partner and JZ is hearsay. However as I will take into account their respective accounts of their communications with Community Corrections or police from their own affidavits, I am also prepared to admit this evidence of the plaintiff, limited to confirming his understanding of that contact.

20. [76]

    On page 495 of the Court Book the affidavit contains what are essentially submissions in relation to the proceedings for an Interim Supervision Order (“ISO”) before Cavanagh J. I have taken this material into account, and it is referred to in other evidence and submissions, and considered further below. At the base of page 496 of the Court Book there is a reference to Community Corrections having lied in case notes after the plaintiff’s release into the community in 2018, but no particulars are provided. Names of 11 particular officers (“and almost all other CSNSW staff”) are alleged in the same affidavit, at a point corresponding with page 505 of the Court Book, to have “lied in case notes about me…” The plaintiff has provided no evidence as to which case notes relied upon by the defendant in the proceedings before me, if any, he takes issue with.

21. [77]

    Allegations contained in this affidavit corresponding with pages 497 to 508 of the Court Book are irrelevant or hearsay except as otherwise noted. I refer below to other aspects of the affidavit that I have taken into account, often for a limited purpose. I uphold the State’s contention regarding r 4.15 of the UCPR as to this document, as set out in MFI 23.

22. [78]

    The plaintiff makes a general assertion in this affidavit at a point corresponding with page 504 of the Court Book that “This ESO has destroyed every relationship, personal and professional, decimated my physical, emotional, spiritual and mental health, utterly devastated every aspect of my existence to the point I have absolutely no quality of life”. As with the plaintiff’s other allegations of this nature, I take into account the fact that he has said it; but it has no probative value in proving anything that has actually occurred under the operation of the ESO. The plaintiff makes a graphic threat of self harm if the order stays, at a point corresponding with Court Book page 505. This threat has been made on multiple other occasions.

23. [79]

    I am satisfied that the plaintiff did intend to read his affidavit dated 20 November 2024 (labelled 2E, and also included in the Court Book at tab 20 of folder 2, having been read in the proceedings before Garling J). However the document is not relevant and I reject it. It could only have relevance in relation to his civil proceedings for damages.

24. [80]

    As to the plaintiff’s affidavit of 18 September 2025, I refer to specific aspects below. In particular in heading or point [10] of the affidavit the plaintiff crystallises his complaints in relation to particular topics. This paragraph however contains a number of topics that are not relevant to the issues that require determination in these proceedings, and are rejected. It includes the general allegation at [10](xxv) headed “Terrorising as Sport” that Community Corrections have deliberately, wilfully and knowingly destroyed his life, and that he holds irrefutable evidence of this conduct, some of which has already been tendered with further evidence to be provided to the Court at hearing. As will become apparent, no such evidence was produced.

25. [81]

    The plaintiff has produced a receipt for a taxi fare for $1,600 on 17 February 2022, which was exhibit O before Garling J. The plaintiff’s affidavit of 18 September 2025 at [10(xxxiii)] says this came about as a result of a decision by Community Corrections on his release from custody, after his success in the CCA, refusing permission to travel home by public transport through the ACT. He says this forms part of his $10 million civil claim (which has been revised to $20 million). The affidavit provided no details as to the identity of the person who made this decision, nor much of the background to it. As best as I can understand the asserted relevance of it to the applications currently before the Court is its suggested demonstration of tendency; namely animosity on the part of Community Corrections towards the plaintiff. The evidence does not have significant probative value for the purposes of s 97 of the Evidence Act, and I do not admit this document nor that portion of the plaintiff’s affidavit.

26. [82]

    A woman who has been given the pseudonym Jane met the plaintiff on 19 November 2022 at an Ecstatic Tantra ticketed event, when they were paired by the event organisers later in the evening for the final activity. She is an active Christian described in the evidence as in a nine year relationship with DP, with young adult children. The plaintiff in opening submissions referred to DP as Jane’s “ex-partner” and submitted that those implementing the ESO had destroyed that relationship. She and the plaintiff have grown to be close friends and business partners. She was present assisting him in Court. A character reference and number of affidavits of Jane are relied upon by the plaintiff.

27. [83]

    The State objects to Jane’s affidavits as each is contended to be “replete with submissions and expressions of opinion and other gratuitous commentary that are likely to be misleading or confusing or cause unfair prejudice; it is more an exercise of advocacy than the provision of evidence and, if admitted, should be afforded little weight.” There is much force in this submission, and there are, further, more particular bases for not receiving parts of the evidence (some of which have been additionally pointed out in the defendant’s schedule of objections, MFI 23). Objection is taken to the character reference of Jane on the basis that it contains material that is irrelevant, and inadmissible hearsay and opinion evidence. I am prepared to admit aspects of Jane’s evidence.

28. [84]

    The plaintiff relied on a character reference written by Jane dated 22 September 2023, formerly exhibit D before Garling J and exhibit 16 in these proceedings. She described him as a man of remarkable compassion, empathy and understanding towards others. She said he had a genuine passion for people and takes a sincere interest in their stories, consistently opens doors of opportunity and offers assistance selflessly, expecting nothing in return. She had observed his dedication to his father, which she described in some detail. She described her observation of his demonstration of respect and kindness to everyone he encounters, and her own family embracing him as part of it. He had attended at her family’s church. She described him as a person of remarkable intelligence, courage, kindness and love.

29. [85]

    Jane at that stage made general assertions of the treatment of the plaintiff by the State as unjust and heavy-handed. I have not taken these into account unless she has provided evidence of a specific observation, which I have included in these reasons. There are no such tangible observations in this document which are not inadmissible hearsay.

30. [86]

    Jane swore an affidavit on 4 April 2024 which was provisionally read and in the Court Book being evidence in the proceedings before Garling J. At that point in time her relationship with the plaintiff had evolved to one of her being his mentor, business associate and close friend. She states that a named officer told her, early on in her relationship with the plaintiff, that they have a Community Governance committee of up to 10 people from different departments sit around a table every day to discuss the plaintiff. This is irrelevant, and hearsay.

31. [87]

    In paragraph [8] Jane describes having experienced “distressing actions from Community Corrections” and “persistent efforts made to separate me from Simon.” I do not place weight on these assertions except to the extent that specific examples are provided in this affidavit. I understand there to be a specific complaint of a CSNSW officer (CS) calling Jane within the first week of meeting the plaintiff, asking if she had felt unsafe in his company and whether she was aware of his past. She told the officer that she was extremely comfortable with him, had been told everything about his past, and did not want to be contacted again – but that she would call if she had any concerns. She provides an account of contact between officers administering the ESO with her daughter JZ and partner DP. Insofar as JZ and DP provide that evidence themselves, I am prepared to accept Jane’s evidence of her upset at being advised of this. Other portions of this paragraph are hearsay.

32. [88]

    I take into account Jane’s statement in this affidavit that she spends a significant amount of time with the plaintiff, and has spent considerable time with him in a wide range of social and professional environments, and has only ever observed him to be participating in the community normally, respectfully and lawfully. She confirmed her observations of his care for his sick father, and kindness to her own elderly aunt. She stated that “His genuine compassion and consideration for others set him apart as the most compassionate and considerate person I have ever encountered.”

33. [89]

    Jane states in paragraph [34] of this affidavit that she has witnessed many phone calls from Community Corrections to the plaintiff, and being horrified and traumatised by these. There is no explanation for this reaction, and it is not capable of directly or indirectly contributing to the determination of any issue before the Court. Further, to the extent that it depends on hearsay evidence of the plaintiff’s account to her of what he had been told in the telephone calls, it would depend on inadmissible hearsay. The plaintiff has not adduced evidence of such representations, far less the truth of such representations. There is some evidence, referred to below, of Jane witnessing herself what has been said to and by the plaintiff because she has attended a meeting or been in the car with the plaintiff with the phone on speaker. This assertion is limited in its use to understanding Jane’s perspective of the plaintiff’s situation, unless she describes a relevant direct observation.

34. [90]

    This affidavit at [34] makes clear that the plaintiff had by 4 April 2024 threatened self harm to Jane if he was not successful in having the ESO revoked.

35. [91]

    In an affidavit dated 11 July 2024 Jane described an occurrence on 20 June 2024. She states that she was in the car with the plaintiff when he had a telephone conversation with CSNSW officer JB that she could hear. Of potential relevance, she heard the officer question the plaintiff as to why he was not in a relationship with Jane, if he loves her so much / thinks the world of her / speaks so highly of her / if she is that nice. The plaintiff and Jane both told the officer that they were friends. Jane states that she was so distressed by this occurrence, and her discussions with her partner about it, that they almost ended their nine year relationship.

36. [92]

    Jane confirmed in this affidavit that she supports the plaintiff financially with money she does not have, and he comes at times to her church. She confirmed her opinion of the plaintiff as one of the most compassionate, generous, kind and honest people she has ever known.

37. [93]

    In her affidavit of 1 August 2024 Jane confirmed that the plaintiff remains one of the most honest, kind-hearted and considerate individuals she knows. Jane’s affidavit of 20 November 2024 (at tab 21 of the Court Book) seems to be a duplicate of this affidavit, but with a different date. This affidavit is rejected.

38. [94]

    Jane’s final affidavit is dated 1 May 2025. She set out the detail of her meeting the plaintiff, as referred to above at [82]. She described having communicated with the plaintiff every day since meeting him. She describes having played an active role in mentoring him and managing his legal communications, and ensuring that his cases were managed properly. She describes their shared moments of friendship, her provision of financial assistance to him, and his attendance at her church. She offers the opinions that “His decency, honesty and respectfulness as a human is far greater than most humans walking this earth …” and that his presence in her life has been a constant source of inspiration and empowerment. She states that his compassion, kindness and generosity remain unchanged, and she continues to witness his selfless acts of kindness daily. She stated that he continued to check in on his elderly father with great pride in him, and still visits her elderly aunt in the nursing home.

39. [95]

    Jane’s affidavit indicates her observation of the relief of the plaintiff since the ankle monitoring was removed in December 2024. He is to her observation far less agitated and he is more at ease, and not so scattered in his interactions.

40. [96]

    Jane describes herself as privileged to be the plaintiff’s closest friend, business partner and legal confidant. She states “As a dedicated Christian woman, I stand by him with deep pride, honouring not just who he is but what he stands for.”

41. [97]

    The 1 May 2024 affidavit of JZ, Jane’s daughter, describes the plaintiff as embodying compassion and kindness. She states that his character shines brightly, especially in his interaction with animals. She states she has never witnessed any behaviour from him that could reasonably be interpreted as an unacceptable risk in the community. I refer below at [212] to a particular aspect of her affidavit. Apart from that aspect of her evidence and the paragraphs corresponding with the issues just noted, her affidavit is not admissible. It otherwise contains irrelevant material, hearsay, inadmissible opinion evidence, and advocacy.

Other potentially relevant topics addressed in plaintiff’s evidence

1. [98]

   The plaintiff’s affidavit dated 16 April 2021 labelled 2P was sworn or affirmed whilst he was in custody. He refers to his time in the community after release in December 2018, before incarceration in August 2020. He makes passing reference to having had a fiancée – “During my entire period of time in the community, my fiancée and I feared for our lives on a moment to moment/daily basis.”

2. [99]

   The plaintiff’s affidavit of 12 January 2022, labelled 2J, makes reference to a number of positive things he was doing in the community. Other evidence indicates he had been in custody at that point in time since 18 August 2020. The plaintiff stated that in the community he had maintained a positive, respectful and loving relationship with an intimate partner for approximately one year. This suggests that the relationship with CL (a woman he was said to have met about seven months before he was interviewed by Dr Eagle on 30 April 2020) had come to an end before or at the time of his incarceration on 18 August 2020. I am not aware of any reference to an ongoing relationship with her after that point in time. The plaintiff did not adduce any evidence from her as to the length or nature of their relationship from her perspective.

3. [100]

   In his affidavit of 3 May 2024 the plaintiff asserts at a point appearing on page 500 of the Court book, while making allegations against CSNSW in relation to the administration of his conditions of parole, that they destroyed his relationship with his fiancée CL. His affidavit of 18 September 2025 at [10](xxxv) states that his relationship was destroyed because of the raid on the premises at which he was living with CL in connection with the 36 charges of breach of ESO laid against him in 2020. I admit this evidence for the limited purpose of the fact that the plaintiff has said it, and as confirming that the relationship with CL did end.

4. [101]

   Speaking more generally of CSNSW, seemingly including the time of the ESO as well as when on parole, in this affidavit at a point corresponding with Court Book page 500, the plaintiff states “I cannot work, I cannot have friends, I cannot have an intimate relationship as they terrorise everyone I know and make them feel they are on parole, I cannot travel anywhere as they pollute everyone wherever I go, covertly wording up all and sundry.” I admit this evidence for the limited purpose of the plaintiff having said it.

5. [102]

   In the same affidavit, at a point corresponding with Court Book page 503, the plaintiff states that a named Departmental Supervising Officer (“DSO”) stalked a female LS to her home, uninvited, absent calling her first, after the plaintiff disclosed he was in an intimate relationship with her. This is hearsay and I do not admit it.

6. [103]

   In her character reference dated 22 September 2023 Jane (who spoke generally of her observations of the plaintiff with people) said “I have also met other individuals with whom Simon has formed connections, notably [LS].” She states that “we” were forthright with her about his past “and she still chose to pursue a relationship with him with full understanding.”

7. [104]

   At [10](xxvii) of his 18 September 2025 affidavit the plaintiff contends that Community Corrections have made false accusations that he was in intimate relationships with women, stalked LS to her residence as “victim hunting”, and that “This pattern of behaviour has been repeated with other women, including CD and many more. As a result, a number of women who could provide evidence in my favour are too intimidated to do so, fearing media exposure and harassment if they come forward.” I reject this evidence as partly irrelevant, and otherwise based on inadmissible hearsay and opinion evidence.

8. [105]

   In documentation supporting the summons filed in this Court on approximately 15 December 2023, the applicant stated amongst other things that his fiancée resides in Queensland and he wanted to spend Christmas with her. There was no evidence adduced by the plaintiff from or about this person in the current proceedings.

9. [106]

   In her affidavit dated 1 May 2025 Jane states that “Since December 2024, I’ve had the privilege of watching Simon really thrive in his relationship with a wonderful woman who’s an amazing match for him.” The person described is Joanne. Jane provides further detail, suggestive of them having been to her observation in a romantic relationship since December 2024.

10. [107]

    The 5 May 2025 affidavit of Joanne states that she had been in an intimate relationship with the plaintiff for approximately three weeks. She states that she is in a very happy, normal, respectful, gentle, supportive and understanding (relationship) with him. She states that she is aware of his “backstory” and the conviction of sexual assault of his former partner in 2008. She states “I’m in court to support Simon and plan on building a life with him.” She refers to having attended many social gatherings with Jane and her partner and family members.

11. [108]

    Joanne says she has no fear of the plaintiff and 100% supports the revocation of the ESO, and does not want any unwelcome contact by Corrective Services NSW, Community Corrections NSW or the NSW Police. She wants to move on peacefully with her life with the plaintiff in it as her partner. She states that after the plaintiff contacted SP from the Extended Supervision Order Team (“ESO team”) to report that they had commenced an intimate relationship, she was not asked to meet them for two weeks and “This then resulted in a barrage of welfare checks from 3 different police commands and a meeting with [SP] and the police outside the Supreme Court last Friday afternoon.”

12. [109]

    The plaintiff accepts that for the evidence I have received to not be misleading, it is appropriate that I take into account the defendant’s evidence that the relationship came to an end on 11 July 2025, with both he and Joanne facing outstanding criminal charges related to the break down of their relationship. The plaintiff in fact wanted to delve deeply into the details of these allegations, which course I prohibited, for reasons delivered on 23 September 2025.

13. [110]

    Other than the portions I have set out, I regard the evidence of Joanne as inadmissible. It is either irrelevant, or inadmissible hearsay or opinion evidence, or evidence the probative value of which is substantially outweighed by the danger that it may be misleading or confusing, or cause or result in undue waste of time.

14. [111]

    In his affidavit of 16 April 2021, labelled 2P, Mr Monteiro, who had then been in custody since August 2020, stated that in prison he had commenced the “Positive Lifestyles” course with the prison chaplaincy, to promote better choices in life and raise awareness of emotional, interpersonal and subconscious factors attributing to success in life. He had also completed the correspondence course “Taking charge of Your Life” and was enrolled in the course “Relationships, Health and Wellness” via correspondence. He was enrolled in the “Emotional Intelligence Self-development Program”, administered by Junee Correctional Centre.

15. [112]

    In this affidavit the plaintiff also states that between release from custody in December 2018 and reincarceration in August 2020 he committed his energy and efforts towards a life pathway of compassion, empathy, community mindedness, intelligent personal insight and awareness towards the end of his behaviour being of benefit to society. He commenced a community vegetable garden project “Feed The People” once he became aware of elderly people being unable to afford fresh produce. He stated that he was half way through qualifying for his commercial helicopter pilot licence and studying a Project Management Diploma via TAFE online. He was then in the process of transferring the Project Management Diploma course studies to the University of New England.

16. [113]

    Since March 2024 the plaintiff has been a client of Mr Chafic Awit, Bridges Psychology Clinic. A report dated 3 May 2024 and further letter dated 18 December 2024 were received provisionally, having been exhibit R in the proceedings before Garling J and thus included in the Court Book (at tab 49 starting at page 807). They will together be exhibit 17. Mr Awit is a registered psychologist, and had been practising as such for 15 years at the time of writing his first report. He provides a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder, panic disorder, and major depressive disorder. He was provided with the 15 May 2020 reports of Dr Furst and Dr Eagle, but did not comment on them other than noting his receipt of them, and the plaintiff’s expressed frustration with Drs Furst and Eagle because, he said, neither asked him about his views about women or society.

17. [114]

    Mr Awit’s report sets out a history from the plaintiff. This includes a background of trauma in childhood and adolescence which is also set out in other documents. Mr Awit states that alongside this, “Mr Monteiro reported years of trauma during his experiences within a number of Correctional Facilities from 2008 onwards as well as his ongoing interactions with Community Corrections during his releases from incarceration.” I limit the use of these quoted representations to their seemingly forming part of Mr Awit’s opinion, rather than as independent evidence of the truth of what was said.

18. [115]

    The history in Mr Awit’s report includes the plaintiff’s advice that since his release from custody in 2018 every effort he has made to seek meaningful employment has been disrupted by the supervision orders he is on and ongoing incidents with Community Corrections and police. As well as the plaintiff’s history, he reviewed affidavits prepared by PD, Jane and a Ms DT said to support this proposition. He refers at another point to having regard to the affidavit of JZ. Mr Awit’s report describes these relevant affidavits as that of JZ dated 2 May 2024, DT dated 29 April 2024, Jane dated 4 April 2024, and PD dated 22 February 2024 alongside attachments. I have not had the benefit of any explanation as to whether the JZ affidavit is the same as that of 1 May 2024 read in these proceedings. There is no affidavit of DT currently before the Court. I presume the 4 April 2024 affidavit of Jane and 22 February 2024 affidavit of PD are the same as those relied upon by the plaintiff before me.

19. [116]

    Mr Awit’s report includes the plaintiff’s report to him on other issues that appear in the plaintiff’s evidence in these proceedings – generalised allegations of the destruction of his quality of life, refusal of service at cafes and stores because of information given to workers by those administering the ESO, as well as to people he has had relationships or sexual interactions with being bombarded by officers administering the ESO, and so on. There are multiple levels of hearsay in his report of these issues, and those in the last paragraph, and I limit their use to understanding Mr Awit’s opinion.

20. [117]

    Mr Awit’s report at [22] and [37] records the fact that the plaintiff has made to him on multiple occasions the same graphic threats of self harm if the current proceedings are not resolved as he wants them to be as he has made so many times to the Court, to Community Corrections officers, Jane, and others.

21. [118]

    Mr Awit refers to some results of psychometric testing, but says that his diagnosis is not based upon these results. From paragraph [33] onwards Mr Awit sets out, as I understand it, how he has made his diagnoses, based upon the history given by Mr Monteiro and his clinical opinion. The report contains the DSM-V diagnostic criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder, and then panic disorder and major depressive disorder, with aspects of these emboldened, seemingly to suggest the aspect he believes to arise on the history provided.

22. [119]

    A history of six years psychological treatment towards the end of the plaintiff’s incarceration, and some recent counselling with another psychologist in the community over the preceding six months, is set out in Mr Awit’s report.

23. [120]

    In his concluding paragraphs Mr Awit expresses the opinion that the plaintiff has been “significantly impacted” by the childhood trauma earlier set out as well as:

24. [121]

    In his final paragraph Mr Awit offers the opinion that the current ESO is significantly impacting Mr Monteiro’s ability to function, alongside exacerbating his ongoing underlying mental health condition. He referred again to the threat of self harm, then states:

25. [122]

    Mr Awit’s letter dated 18 December 2024 confirms ongoing treatment of Mr Monteiro. He describes observation of a healthy, pro-social, supportive relationship with Jane.

26. [123]

    Mr Awit’s letter dated 18 September 2025 (exhibit 18) states that the opinions expressed in the report of 3 May 2024 are unchanged. He remains of the view that the current ESO is “significantly impacting Mr Monteiro’s ability to function alongside exacerbating his ongoing underlying mental health conditions.”

27. [124]

    In the plaintiff’s affidavit dated 16 April 2021, labelled 2P, he states that he completed a Work Health Safety (“WHS”) Diploma in 2013 in Cooma Prison.

28. [125]

    Page 1 of the plaintiff’s affidavit of 18 September 2025 states that since his conviction in 2008 he has been subjected to systematic targeting, including being stopped from working and making an income. This is an inadmissible opinion. If it is actually based on anything he directly saw, heard or perceived the opinion is not necessary to understand the description he could give of such event. If it is based on anything he has actually been told it would be based on hearsay. I limit the use of this representation to the fact that the plaintiff has said it.

29. [126]

    The plaintiff’s affidavit of 3 May 2024, at Court Book page 497, asserts that Community Corrections have polluted every person’s mind the plaintiff meets including potential business connections, this designed to destroy his life. This assertion is relevant to understanding the plaintiff’s case that the ESO interferes with his capacity to work, but if based on anything he has actually been told is hearsay, and is otherwise inadmissible opinion evidence, and I limit its use to the purpose indicated.

30. [127]

    At point [10](lxiv) of this affidavit the plaintiff contends that as a result of the interference of Community Corrections he lost his employment at the Balmain Power Station remediation project where he was working as a WHS Manager, which he says is confirmed by the affidavit of EB.

31. [128]

    The affidavit of EB of 17 February 2023 indicates that he is the Managing Director and Proprietor of a company called Total Demolition Services. In the fourth quarter of 2022 he engaged the services of the plaintiff as WHS Manager, tasked with establishing a WHS Management System and a Resource Specific Policy and Procedures in accordance with the Safe Work Act NSW (presumably the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW)). EB described in very positive terms the work undertaken in that capacity by the plaintiff for what would seem to be at least a few weeks. The plaintiff’s work came to an end because approximately three weeks before Christmas 2022 the Senior Site Manager of a Tier 1 company, being the primary contractor, told EB he had become aware of media reports relating to criminal convictions of the plaintiff, such that he would not be permitted by security to further enter and access the work site.

32. [129]

    In his affidavit of 3 May 2024 the plaintiff asserts, at a point appearing at Court Book pages 500-501, that CSNSW continue to issue unlawful and unreasonable directions, “including ordering and directing me that I am not to refer female victims of sexual assault to a lawyer, and if, as a result of being in the same employ or in any business venture, I learn someone in the same organisation or in any business dealing has been a victim of domestic violence or sexual assault, I must immediately cease the business operation or resign from the employment.”

33. [130]

    The plaintiff’s affidavit dated 18 September 2025 at [10](vii) asserts an unreasonable direction was given that he could not work on any site where he discovered that a woman had been subjected to domestic violence or sexual assault. Given the number of women with such background this was said to make it practically impossible for him to work in any setting. He states he was employed by a lawyer (no date or details are provided) to assist victims of sexual assault and domestic violence by preparing affidavits and statements and referring them for compensation claims. Officer CS specifically directed him that he could not refer any woman to a lawyer for such matters.

34. [131]

    A written communication dated 23 March 2022 from Community Corrections Officer CS to the plaintiff included a number of directions pursuant to the imposed conditions. The plaintiff was directed on that occasion to not engage in threatening, intimidating or abusive behaviour. There were mobile phone and social media directions similar to those in the above described direction. He was directed to provide a DSO with the contact details of employers, business associates and the like, to truthfully answer questions related to business activity, and not to engage with or attempt to communicate with any female he is aware has been or is a victim of sexual abuse or violence in relation to any of his employment or business ventures, including paid and unpaid work, contract employment and volunteer work.

35. [132]

    Exhibit T before Garling J was a written direction by Community Corrections Officer AW to the plaintiff on 23 March 2024 that he not engage in any threatening, intimidating or abusive behaviour towards CSNSW or electronic monitoring staff that would cause them to fear for their safety and / or interfere with or impede supervision. He was additionally directed to provide usernames and passwords for dating apps or websites and social club or similar organisations within 24 hours of joining, and usernames and passwords for social networking apps, websites or organisations he was a member of. He was directed to provide detailed inventories relevant to devices and email addresses. He was directed not to destroy, tamper with or interfere in any way with devices, nor clear content, nor use multiple devices, and related directions. He was directed, in accordance with condition 19, to provide a DSO with the contact details of any employer, business associate or partner with whom he is undertaking employment or with whom he has a business agreement. He was directed not to engage with or attempt to communicate with any female whom he was aware had been or was a victim of sexual abuse or violence in relation to any of his employment or business ventures, including paid and unpaid work, contract employment and volunteer work. These two warning / directions from Community Corrections to the plaintiff will collectively be received as exhibit 19.

36. [133]

    The plaintiff’s affidavit of 18 September 2025 says at [10](xix):

37. [134]

    He has requested to use his original birth name for work purposes but this was refused.

38. [135]

    Jane’s character reference dated 22 September 2023 states she has actively supported the plaintiff in various business projects to help him regain his footing.

39. [136]

    In his affidavit of 3 May 2024 under a bullet point concerning the administration of his parole conditions when released in February 2018 (as recorded at Court Book page 498), the plaintiff complains that CSNSW attempted to persuade potential employers to not give him work, and banned him from “working for an employer out of utter spite after he refused to pre canvas all potential clients...”. I take this into account to the extent that it relates to the evidence of PD. I otherwise do not take into account the assertions regarding the administration of his parole given its remote relevance to the current application and the hearsay nature of much of it. Similarly at a point in the affidavit recorded at Court Book page 502, the plaintiff states that a named DSO banned him unlawfully and unreasonably from working with PD. The point is repeated at Court Book pages 506-507 that the same named officer banned him unlawfully from working for PD’s WHS company, and “terrorised myself and [PD] absent a scintilla of merit in justification for doing so.”

40. [137]

    PD’s early dealings with the plaintiff relate to a time when he was on parole in 2019, not subject to the ESO. A condition of his parole was that he provide weekly in advance a schedule of his proposed movements. The evidence of PD is in an affidavit dated 22 February 2024, and a statutory declaration dated 26 October 2021 with attachments to it. These documents were both before Garling J, were provisionally read and received in the current proceedings, and the statutory declaration and attachments will be marked exhibit 20. Mr PD lives in Queensland. In his October 2021 statutory declaration he describes his occupation as Consultant. He states that he has an organisation which provides many services to assist its clients; namely integrated management systems, audit certification, urgent assistance with meeting Safework incident investigations and compliance (24 hour a day call-out) and training. In his 22 February 2024 affidavit he states that he is a qualified compliance coordinator, senior trainer, WHS auditor, lead auditor, and licensed asbestos assessor. His business then serviced clients in Queensland, NSW, ACT, Victoria and South Australia. His business’ specialty was said to be attaining compliance with WHS legislation and accreditation of existing and potential clientele. He said he was then 7 weeks from retirement age, and looking to train people to step into his shoes to continue his 20 year legacy.

41. [138]

    A client of PD’s mentioned the plaintiff to him prior to the plaintiff’s release from prison as someone who may be suitable to undertake work for PD on a casual or commission only basis. He spoke to the plaintiff on the day of his release from prison. He does not provide a date for the plaintiff’s release from prison, but I infer from his interactions with Community Corrections as set out in the statutory declaration that it was the plaintiff’s second release to parole on 14 December 2018. Oddly, PD’s February 2024 affidavit describes conversations with the plaintiff on the day of his release concerning hurdles the plaintiff was facing getting home, and the requirement imposed by Corrective Services that he not pass through Canberra, resulting in no choice but a taxi which cost $1,600 that was paid for by the witness. The $1,600 taxi fare has prominence in the plaintiff’s own evidence and submissions – and was in fact the issue regarded as so important to him as to require an indication of admissibility during the hearing on 23 September 2025 shortly prior to deciding to play no further role in the proceedings. This fare however arose on the plaintiff’s release from custody on 17 February 2022.

42. [139]

    Nonetheless, the whole of the evidence of PD does indicate that he and the plaintiff had contact before 17 February 2022, namely early 2019, meeting for the first time on about 27 March 2019. PD was made aware by a client of the diploma the plaintiff completed in prison, and the qualifications he was endeavouring to obtain through Swinburne University of Technology.

43. [140]

    I reject as inadmissible PD’s expressions of opinion regarding Community Corrections, which forms a significant portion of the 22 February 2024 affidavit. The emails attached to the statutory declaration give the most cogent evidence as to what actually occurred, and I will set that out. PD’s evidence that the DSO DF repeatedly asked him “Do you know what he has done?” is irrelevant, relating to the plaintiff’s time on parole, not the ESO. I do not accept or give any weight to PD’s statement of opinion that he estimates the plaintiff’s earning potential to be a minimum of $5,000 weekly salary and a realistic contracting potential of $15,000 to $20,000 per week. There is simply no indication as to what he bases this on. Hearsay representations in the affidavit such as the plaintiff’s statements to him about other work terminations, and alleged advice to him at some undisclosed time of the view of the State Parole Authority regarding the plaintiff’s schedules, is inadmissible hearsay.

44. [141]

    On 19 February 2019 PD sent the plaintiff an email indicating that after their ongoing discussions he was pleased to offer him the opportunity to work with his organisation as a safety consultant. He stated that to ensure he has the required processes to meet and assist their clients he was required to visit their offices on the Sunshine Coast, Queensland, for a couple of days for procedural induction and training, and asked the plaintiff to seek approval for interstate visits. The plaintiff indicated that he would attend to this. On 13 March 2019 the plaintiff sent an email to PD reminding him that he had suggested reading material so that he could familiarise himself with what he needed to know to work in Sydney, and PD responded, attaching some documents.

45. [142]

    On 21 March 2019 PD advised the plaintiff that he would be in Sydney the following Tuesday to Thursday morning, and suggested they meet to undertake training and mentoring for the plaintiff to begin work under their banner as a consultant. He indicated that he usually stays at the Meriton Mascot. He asked for confirmation that the plaintiff would be able to attend. On 22 March 2019 there were three emails between PD and DF. Given the fact that PD was on the Sunshine Coast and DF on the Central Coast of NSW, it is possible that the order set out is not reflective of the order in which these were sent. At 12:45 pm DF sent an email to PD thanking him for his time again, and asking him to email either a letter of employment or a list of duties and what they entail, confirmation of appointment time for Wednesday and the address of the Meriton Apartments, and a reminder that the plaintiff is subject to a number of exclusion zones hence they need to know the address and possible locations where he may be sourcing work for their business. At 2:02 pm DF sent an email to PD indicating that the meeting on Wednesday was approved, and asking for confirmation once flights and accommodation were arranged so they could update the system. PD sent an email to DF at 2:39 pm, stating that he would be meeting with the plaintiff the following Wednesday to finalise a work agreement. He stated that the plaintiff would be on contract and paid on a percentage of sales and consultation fees earned. He stated that his areas of work could be anywhere in NSW but primarily Sydney and the Central Coast. He indicated that they intended to meet at Meriton apartments near Mascot.

46. [143]

    On 2 April 2019, PD sent an email to the Secretary of the Parole Board confirming his meeting with the plaintiff the previous Wednesday, being their first meeting in person, and his knowledge of the plaintiff’s past. He stated that they met at the business centre of the Felix Hotel Sydney where there were a number of business meetings and functions underway. He stated that he observed the plaintiff to meet and introduce himself to people in a way that won their trust in brief interactions, gaining information to establish future business contracts. He thus said that “It is my opinion that Simon is far better placed to cold call and meet with clients face to face rather than making appointments.” He stated that safety in the construction industry is crisis based work, and the team must be ready to move promptly and often travel far away. He suggested the plaintiff’s reporting requirements were excessive, as were day to day schedules of movements for the following week, as “I cannot tell you where I will be next week till the phone rings and I am on my way sometimes with an hours’ notice to catch a flight.” He thus stated that to move forward he required commitment that the plaintiff can complete his education being Diploma in Quality Auditing, qualifications in Safety, Training and Assessing, will be available to service clients interstate in the near future, and can attend two weeks on-site audits with him in Queensland to finalise his qualification in auditing. He stated that the plaintiff may not have the ability to access power and stay close to chargers so the ankle monitoring must be considered.

47. [144]

    On 1 May 2019 DF sent an email to PD seeking confirmation that the plaintiff continued to work on behalf of his business, approaching businesses in Sydney. PD responded affirmatively the same day. On 3 May 2019 DF sent an email to PD seeking confirmation as to whether the plaintiff’s intentions to attend the Mirvac Sydney was for Best Practice Managed Solutions or his own business venture. PD responded the same day saying “That meeting was weeks ago, check your emails, you are wasting my time and if this harassment keeps up I will terminate him.”

48. [145]

    On 9 May 2019 there was a series of emails. At 11:17 am PD wrote to DF as follows:

49. [146]

    At 2:11 pm the plaintiff was written to by DF in the following terms:

50. [147]

    At 2:40 pm PD wrote to DF in following terms:

51. [148]

    At 5:36 pm PD wrote to DF in the following terms:

52. [149]

    The second last paragraph of the fourth page of PD’s affidavit states that when he is in Sydney he has seen the plaintiff demonstrate that he can work safely within the community without the schedules Community Corrections mandated. It is not clear what time frame he is referring to, whether the witness is talking about work for his own business or other work, nor what level of observation this was.

53. [150]

    In his affidavit of 1 August 2024 the plaintiff asserts that on 26 July 2024 he had a telephone conversation with a named CSNSW staff member (JB) while he was in a car with Jane present. He states that he telephoned the officer to ask to add an invitation to partake in training with PD in Queensland to the (existing) application for him to be authorised to travel to Queensland to partake in the training. He says the officer requested the plaintiff photograph the invitation from PD and send it to him as a text message, which he did. He said that the officer then aggressively demanded that the plaintiff disclose who received the email, and whether he had any access to any email address personally. On the plaintiff’s own account this request resulted in an argument wherein he swore at and made accusations against the officer.

54. [151]

    In this same affidavit the plaintiff made the general allegation that “...other than travel to QLD to engage in this process, the prospects of securing a meaningful method of utilizing my skills are few and far between, due to Corrective Services and NSW Police continuously and relentlessly, covertly approaching every professional contact I make and sabotaging it. I have evidence of this per the Affidavits of [Jane], PD and others.” I limit the use of this assertion to the fact that it was said.

55. [152]

    In her character reference dated 22 September 2023 Jane purports to describe interference by CSNSW with the plaintiff’s employment for countless WHS roles for which he is offered employment worth $150,000 per annum. However this must be based on at least one level of hearsay (what the plaintiff told her), and more if it is actually based on anything plaintiff was really told; and I will not take it into account other than as proof of the fact that the plaintiff has told her these things. There is also hearsay evidence in her affidavit of 1 May 2025 of impediments to the plaintiff’s employment, and I have not taken it into account otherwise than in the same way.

56. [153]

    The situation with PD is addressed in the plaintiff’s affidavit of 18 September 2025 at [10](xvii) and (xviii). He alleges that he has been unlawfully banned from working for PD and refused permission to travel to undertake training. I reject as irrelevant or inadmissible hearsay and opinion evidence the plaintiff’s suppositions about someone from Community Corrections telephoning PD under pretence.

57. [154]

    The plaintiff relies upon the affidavit of PB, who has experience in the television and music industry, and has known the plaintiff since approximately 1990. He trained the plaintiff in the past in music production, song writing and management. This led to the plaintiff being successfully engaged professionally in the music industry overseas.

58. [155]

    PB’s affidavit is written from the perspective of someone who, like Jane, has adopted the plaintiff’s advocated position of the impact of the ESO upon him, and who believes there is a “horrific and oppressive set of circumstances being imposed upon Simon’s life and the lives of those who support him” by those who are “intent on irreparably destroying” the plaintiff’s life. He speaks of the plaintiff being met with “booby-traps, land mines and acts of spitefulness and persecution by Corrections.” These representations are limited in their use to the fact that the plaintiff has portrayed his situation this way to him, and understanding the weight to be given to the witness’ opinion as a result. There is no indication as to what PB understands the conditions upon the plaintiff to be, to enable any connection with the reality of the circumstances of the plaintiff’s ESO. His opinion is that “Absent all this madness” the plaintiff would be easily earning more than $500,000 USD a year. Without knowing what the witness thinks is happening to the plaintiff, to be able to compare it with the evidence, this opinion carries no weight in relation to the issues for my determination.

59. [156]

    PB otherwise speaks well of the plaintiff’s character. It is not apparent from his affidavit that he is aware of the conduct for which the plaintiff has been convicted, and his conduct towards others as set out in the Offender Integrated Management System (“OIMS”) notes that are before the Court.

60. [157]

    As noted above, the history in Mr Awit’s report includes the plaintiff’s advice that since his release from custody in 2018 every effort he has made to seek meaningful employment has been disrupted by the supervision orders he is on and ongoing incidents with Corrections Services and Police. As well as the plaintiff’s history, he reviewed affidavits prepared by PD, Jane and a Ms DT said to support this proposition, as noted above.

61. [158]

    At [10](xx) of the plaintiff’s affidavit of 18 September 2025 he states that he was banned from operating an events company upon the stated reasoning that he might be recognised. There is no further detail or evidence in support of or further description of this assertion. It is either not relevant, or based on inadmissible hearsay, or misleading or confusing.

62. [159]

    At [10](lvi) of the same affidavit the plaintiff claims that he cannot work because Community Corrections insist he must report every week during working hours.

63. [160]

    The plaintiff’s affidavit of 12 January 2022 labelled 2L states that on 10 January 2022 he (being then in custody) was contacted by a named officer of Community Corrections, Gosford, to advise that she would be taking over his case, and requested authorisation to speak to the plaintiff’s father with respect to approval of a suitable residential address for bail. The plaintiff had a bail application pending in connection with his CCA severity appeal. He states that he told her nothing had changed except the address was even more acceptable, as the brother he had previous issues with no longer attended such address, that his father had cancer, and she must email the exact questions she wanted to ask him, which questions would be asked in the presence of his lawyer.

64. [161]

    The plaintiff in his affidavit of 3 May 2024, at Court Book page 497, asserts that Community Corrections have polluted every person’s mind he meets including family members, this designed to destroy his life. This assertion is relevant to understanding the ambit of the plaintiff’s case that the ESO interferes with his family relations, but if it is based on anything it is hearsay (and inadmissible opinion evidence) and I limit its use to the purpose indicated. I treat similarly, from the same affidavit, appearing on pages corresponding with page 499 of the Court Book, the plaintiff’s assertion that while he was on parole Corrective Services turned his family members against him with lies. If based on anything, it is on inadmissible hearsay and opinion evidence. I limit its use to understanding the breadth of the case the plaintiff seeks to advance.

65. [162]

    I referred earlier to my determination on 23 September 2025 to disallow the admission of documents described as being in topic 11 of the plaintiff’s Table of Contents document, MFI 15. This included correspondence dated 5 December 2019 from the plaintiff’s brother AL to a lawyer in which he set out a history of then existing family disharmony, including by suggesting that AL’s brother BL was behaving badly, speaking badly about their father, and antagonising and treating poorly the plaintiff. There is medical documentation dated 24 October 2023 which is difficult to read but which the plaintiff contended states that the plaintiff was no longer involved in his father’s care (which was said from the bar table to be false). There were photographs of the plaintiff’s father’s medical prescriptions, and photographs that were said to be of the plaintiff’s father’s freezer at a time when one or both of the plaintiff’s brothers were caring for him, said to show the poor quality of processed food they provided him.

66. [163]

    By apparent email correspondence dated 22 August 2024 Detective GB forwarded, to a person the relevance of whose identity is not apparent upon anything drawn to my attention, correspondence that a brother of the plaintiff had sent to an officer of the Department of Communities and Justice involved in administering the plaintiff’s ESO. The correspondence from the plaintiff’s brother indicated that claims the plaintiff was making about their father and the plaintiff’s care for him were untrue (which was said by the plaintiff from the bar table to be untrue).

67. [164]

    By correspondence dated 1 August 2025 a law firm acting on behalf of the plaintiff’s brothers and another named male, who collectively held a power of attorney for the plaintiff’s father, required the plaintiff to vacate the plaintiff’s father’s premises. The letter says that Detective GB from the ESO team has confirmed that alternative accommodation is available for someone in the position of the plaintiff. On its face this would suggest that those holding the power of attorney or their lawyer had some concern as to what would happen to the plaintiff if evicted, likely knowledgeable about the existence of the ESO, and made contact with a relevant officer for assistance.

68. [165]

    The plaintiff submits that I should draw the inference that Detective GB was aware of the December 2019 letter, stating from the bar table that he told Detective GB about it. The plaintiff submits that the body of evidence in topic 11 is relevant because it shows there has been unlawful contact by Detective GB to his family members, and further, that Detective GB conspired with his brothers to have him evicted from his father’s home. There were further submissions advanced regarding the impropriety of the power of attorney, and alternative legal proceedings that will be pursued by the plaintiff to remedy this.

69. [166]

    I rejected the tender of this body of evidence because it is not relevant. Further, it contains inadmissible hearsay and opinion evidence, and arguably documents the subject of legal professional privilege. The documents do not support the propositions advanced. They will be marked for identification MFI 29. Some of these documents were included in the Court Book, being exhibit Q in the proceedings before Garling J. I reject the tender of those documents (at tab 48 of the Court Book) for the same reason. I also reject the plaintiff’s assertions on the same issue in points [10](viii)-(ix) of his 18 September 2025 affidavit for the same reasons.

70. [167]

    The plaintiff submitted on 22 September 2025 that he would rely on evidence that Detective GB had colluded with Corrective Services and his brothers to get him held in custody in 2024. This was submitted to have been addressed before his Honour Harrison CJ at CL in support of an application for bail in 2024. It was submitted that they then arranged for the plaintiff to be evicted while he was locked up. It was submitted that he was managing his father’s property, and his brothers colluded with Detective GB, such that he is now in essence homeless. This was said to support the submission that the Court had destroyed his life. Although a copy of the transcript of the bail proceedings before Harrison CJ at CL was received informally during the hearing from the plaintiff, there was no portion of it that he wished to draw to my attention to support these contentions, and it has not been admitted in evidence or considered. In addition to the reasons outlined in the paragraph above, I reject the plaintiff’s assertion on this issue in point [10](viii) of his affidavit of 18 September 2025 as he ultimately did not take me to that evidence.

71. [168]

    In his affidavit of 18 September 2025 at point [10](x) the plaintiff alleges unlawful contact by officers of Corrective Services and Community Corrections with his father. If this assertion is based on anything, it must be hearsay; and the paragraphs also include inadmissible opinion evidence. I limit the use of these paragraphs to the fact that the plaintiff makes this assertion.

72. [169]

    The plaintiff sought to tender a warning from Community Corrections Officer AW on 3 April 2024, directing him to not stay overnight anywhere other than his approved address or any alternative approved address (if relevant) without prior approval. This was in connection with him staying overnight at his father’s residence, which had been permitted before but was said to require permission on each occasion. This was exhibit P before Garling J. I am not of the view that this document is relevant and I do not admit it as evidence.

73. [170]

    In the plaintiff’s affidavit of 18 September 2025 at [10](xix) he complains that he has not been able to see his aunt and uncle in Queensland.

74. [171]

    In his affidavit of 14 December 2021, labelled 2F, the plaintiff states at paragraph [34]:

75. [172]

    I have dealt above with family and employment. At paragraph [36] the plaintiff states:

76. [173]

    Paragraph [37] states that the mission of CSNSW and the police has been to entirely decimate his life, making it impossible for him to live any life at all.

77. [174]

    The State has submitted in writing that, bar the demonstration of the plaintiff’s vindictiveness, this affidavit is very old and of limited relevance. During the oral hearing it was conceded that paragraphs [32] onwards had some potential relevance to the current application. I am of the view that these paragraphs are relevant because of the plaintiff making the allegations, but, if based on anything, are hearsay. They are limited to demonstrating the length of time over which the plaintiff has been making far reaching generalised allegations which are not supported by any evidence, despite the time he has had to gather it.

78. [175]

    The portion of the plaintiff’s affidavit of 3 May 2024 appearing at Court Book page 497 asserts that Community Corrections have polluted every person’s mind that he meets including flight schools, friends and government departments, designed to destroy his life. This assertion is relevant to understanding the fact that the plaintiff argues and has long argued that the ESO interferes with his capacity to live functionally, but if based on anything it is hearsay, and I limit its use to the purpose indicated.

79. [176]

    In a portion of the plaintiff’s affidavit dated 3 May 2024 that appears at Court Book page 507, he states that some months previously he attempted to order dinner at a pizza restaurant on the NSW Central Coast. He stated that as he approached the counter a man standing behind the counter said “Is your name Simon?” and after an affirmative answer was provided, said “The police came here and told me to not serve you.” The plaintiff states that he has subsequently learned the man’s name, and that he is the owner of the business. He repeats this allegation in various ways in other affidavits and submissions, such as his 18 September 2025 affidavit at [10](xxi). He has specified the name and location of the pizzeria.

80. [177]

    The plaintiff in his affidavit dated 18 September 2025 affidavit, at [10](ii) says Community Corrections have attempted to ban him from flying helicopters. He says that he will rely upon the documents that prove his assertions. The plaintiff says they contacted the Department of Home Affairs, and he then received correspondence stating that because he had applied for an Aviation Security Identification Card (“ASIC”), Home Affairs had been contacted by Community Corrections to block his application. No such correspondence was annexed to his affidavit or otherwise tendered. There was however relevant evidence tendered before Garling J, and as the plaintiff pressed the tender of all evidence before Garling J it was provisionally admitted. Before describing it I note that point [10](xxx) of the plaintiff’s 18 September 2025 affidavit also claims that because of the unlawfully imposed ESO he was unable to complete his helicopter licence, in which he had invested approximately $80,000. The asserted link at this point seems to be his imprisonment for breaches of the ESO.

81. [178]

    Exhibit F before Garling J comprised two letters from the Department of Home Affairs to the plaintiff. The first was dated 9 October 2019, based upon his having applied for an ASIC. It states “When you applied for an ASIC, you gave us permission to do a criminal history check. Our checking indicates you may have a conviction for at least one Aviation-Security Relevant Offence (ASRO) where you were sentenced to imprisonment.” He was advised that he may thus have what is regarded as an adverse criminal record, in which case he may not be eligible to hold an ASIC. It was confirmed that no decision had yet been made. Purportedly attached to that letter was a copy of the relevant criminal history information that AusCheck had received regarding his application. This attachment was not included in the plaintiff’s tender of exhibit F before Garling J.

82. [179]

    By correspondence dated 13 November 2019 from the Department of Home Affairs to the plaintiff, he was advised that his application for an ASIC had been unsuccessful and he was not eligible to hold one. It was stated “This decision is based on your conviction for an Aviation-Security-Relevant Offence (ASRO). Individuals convicted of an ASRO and sentenced to imprisonment are considered to have an adverse criminal record, as defined by the Aviation Transport Security Regulations 2005, which prevents them from being issued with an ASIC” (emphasis in original). The plaintiff was advised that AusCheck was now required to inform Airport Security/Security ID that they must not issue him with an ASIC. The plaintiff was advised of the prospect of obtaining a discretionary ASIC, and of how to appeal AusCheck’s decision to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. A document attached to this entitled “Criminal History Information” listed the aggravated sexual assault conviction and period of imprisonment imposed, and destruction of property conviction and period of imprisonment imposed, with the appeal to the CCA being dismissed in relation to both.

83. [180]

    A letter dated 8 March 2020 from Kevin Ratcliffe, the Chief Pilot / Chief Flying Instructor at Skyline Aviation Group, Lake Macquarie Airport, to whom it may concern, was before Garling J as exhibit E. It confirmed that the plaintiff had been undertaking commercial helicopter pilot training since April 2019. This was a part-time course. He had been a diligent student. The head of operations at Warnervale Air Pty Ltd wrote a letter in support of the plaintiff dated 27 May 2020. This was exhibit L before Garling J. The letter attested to the plaintiff’s co-operation and diligence in his flight training, the author indicating he had seen nothing to suggest the plaintiff should not be issued with an ASIC. Exhibits E, F and L before Garling J will collectively be marked as exhibit 21.

84. [181]

    Jane’s character reference dated 22 September 2023 states “I have never had a police welfare check call on me.” On the next page she states “I, too, have faced their intrusive actions, despite explicitly requesting not to be contacted.” This statement is meaningless, in the absence of any description.

85. [182]

    The 1 August 2024 affidavit of Jane, and the plaintiff’s of 1 August 2024, describe an occurrence on 26 July 2024 after the conversation in the car described above at [150]. The plaintiff states that a police paddy wagon and two other cars, with a total of five police officers, arrived for a welfare check. He states that the previous day the officer (JB) had seen Jane in the plaintiff’s car, and asked her how she was. The rest of this material is irrelevant or hearsay.

86. [183]

    Jane’s affidavit refers to hearing every word of the conversation between the officer and the plaintiff in the car, but does not refer to the plaintiff’s acknowledged swearing at and levelling of allegations against the officer (even on his own account; and for the officer’s account see below at [314]). She states that about 20 minutes later three cars arrived at her residence purportedly to conduct a welfare check on her, and it was intimidating. She stated that she had been sighted the previous day by the relevant officer and confirmed her welfare positively.

87. [184]

    Both the plaintiff and Jane refer to a recording made by the plaintiff of the attendance of police at Jane’s residence. The plaintiff stated during the hearing that he had this available on a USB for tender. The plaintiff had not yet reached the point of tendering this when he forewent the tendering of any further evidence. Accordingly there is no recording of this police attendance in evidence.

88. [185]

    At point [10](i) of the plaintiff’s affidavit of 18 September 2025 he alleges that Community Corrections NSW contacted TAFE and interfered with his capacity to undertake the online diploma he was enrolled in. He alleges a clear intent to destroy his study potential and prevent him from gaining qualifications that would assist him living a lawful life in the community. This was said to have become part of the punitive aspect of the ESO. The plaintiff does not provide any time frame, nor state which diploma he is speaking of. As noted above at [57] the plaintiff’s evidence includes the fact that a TAFE Digital Diploma of Project Management was due to be undertaken between March 2020 and February 2021. As noted above at [112] his evidence is also to the effect that he was undertaking this study, and endeavouring to transfer it, before he was arrested and incarcerated in August 2020. If these paragraphs in point [10](i) are based on anything it is hearsay. I limit the use of these paragraphs to the fact that the plaintiff has so asserted.

89. [186]

    The plaintiff’s affidavit of 30 May 2024, in a second bullet point starting on the page corresponding with Court Book page 490, describes a home visit during torrential rain and flooding by Detective GB and DSO CS who refused to remove their shoes even though the plaintiff had just mopped the floor. Detective GB is alleged to have flicked the plaintiff’s dog on the nose, with the dog reacting angrily and attempting to bite Detective GB, which caused the plaintiff to secure the dog. Detective GB is alleged to have threatened to shoot the dog dead if the plaintiff released him. The plaintiff also states in this affidavit that in the preceding weeks Detective GB had threatened to lock him up three times if he breaches the ESO. The plaintiff’s affidavit of 18 September 2025 at [10](lvi) also alleges DSO CS and Detective GB waked into his house with dirty shoes after a storm and after he had mopped the floor.

90. [187]

    The plaintiff’s affidavit of 18 September 2025 states at [10](xxxvi) that after he was arrested (in 2020 for breaching the ESO) police said to CL “If you say he raped you, we will charge him and proceed to trial on a rape charge.” I do not regard this contention as relevant; but it is also inadmissible hearsay, if based on anything CL actually said to him. I do not understand the plaintiff to contend he heard this himself.

91. [188]

    On about 3 October 2024 the plaintiff met a woman, AF, coincidentally, at a retail store. She operates a business coaching and consultancy firm. They spoke about business coaching services, and about media articles relating to his case. She spoke with Jane, at the plaintiff’s suggestion, and made a decision to make accessible to the plaintiff her coaching services. In the days between then and 10 October 2024, when her first affidavit was affirmed, she spent considerable time personally coaching the plaintiff. She stated that she had been alone with him and never felt her safety or security compromised. He treated her with respect and dignity. She stated that “our contact has and will remain purely professional.” She stated emphatically that she did not wish for any form of welfare check, and that if she had any concerns she would immediately contact the relevant authorities.

92. [189]

    A further affidavit of AF dated 20 November 2024 is relied upon by the plaintiff. She states that two police officers, including Detective GB, attended her premises on 5 November 2024. She says that after the police officers showed her their badges Detective GB asked why she swore an affidavit for the plaintiff a week after meeting him and she answered him. He asked about the nature of her relationship with the plaintiff and she referred him to her affidavit. He asked if she was aware of the plaintiff’s background and she said she was. He asked why the plaintiff stays at her place until late at night and she said she was not obliged to answer that question, but then advised that it was because they do work on US based coaching programs that are accessed late at night due to time zone differences. He told her the police were there to support her if her situation changes. She said she did not like police turning up at her door. She says she stated to the police that she is there to support the plaintiff as his coach and mentor and that he has been respectful, trustworthy, grateful for the support and a brilliant client to work with. He asked her if she had a partner and she told him she was not going to answer that question as it was personal and inappropriate. He encouraged her to do and know everything she needed if something developed with the plaintiff. She ended this affidavit with a request that police leave her alone.

93. [190]

    In the third affidavit of AF read by the plaintiff, dated 3 September 2025, she stated that she supported the plaintiff as his coach and mentor from October 2024 to March 2025. She states that on 6 December 2024 an email was sent by her lawyer to Detective GB “with reference to the number of times he had contacted me and visited my home and to please take notice, as this letter serves as a ‘Cease and Desist’. However, Det [GB] continued to contact me by phone and email.” The lawyer’s 6 December 2024 email, tendered as exhibit 7, refers to instructions of police attending on more than one occasion, and threatened legal action upon further attendance. AF’s affidavit does not describe quantitatively or qualitatively the contact Detective GB had with her prior to it being sent. AF does not elaborate on the number or nature of instances of phone or email contact initiated by Detective GB between 6 December 2024 and her swearing of the affidavit on 3 September 2025. She states that on Sunday morning, 15 June 2025, a female police officer visited her house to check on her welfare, and stated it was at the request of Detective GB. AF made clear that she did not require a welfare check, and wished for her request that Detective GB cease contacting her be recorded. I reject as irrelevant and / or inadmissible hearsay and opinion evidence another document the plaintiff endeavoured to tender as part of exhibit 7, namely an email from him to the solicitor for the defendant and the chambers of the Chief Judge at Common Law. This will be marked MFI 30.

94. [191]

    At point [10](xiv) of his affidavit of 18 September 2025 the plaintiff alleges that Community Corrections and associated authorities have systematically targeted and terrorised his personal and professional contacts, deliberately undermining his support network. He states “In particular, my mentor and supporter, AF, has been harassed in ways designed to intimidate her and discourage her from providing evidence in my defence.” I have taken into account the evidence pertaining to AF as outlined by AF. I limit this aspect of the plaintiff’s evidence to the fact that he has asserted it.

95. [192]

    In an unsworn document headed as an affidavit, dated 15 October 2021 and labelled 2W, the plaintiff states at paragraph [24] that prior to his release from custody on 14 December 2018 he attended a State Parole Authority hearing via AVL and learned that Corrective Services NSW had approached the NSW Police and made a formal request to the police to contact his former partner CD to request that she make a police statement against him. He refers to the condition of parole which banned him from contacting CD which came to be imposed. He states at paragraph [28] that “[CD] contacted me, first via email, then by telephone. I advised [CD] that I could not speak to her and why. She immediately emailed a statement to my lawyer and to The State Parole Authority (S.P.A.R.)...”. He made reference to the email, and the immediate rescinding of that parole condition. On page 8 of the same document Mr Monteiro says the following, after referring again to the grant of parole and CD,

96. [193]

    The State objects to this document. This is on the basis of Part 5 of the Oaths Act 1900 (NSW), as it does not appear to have been affirmed effectively before a qualified person. However I am prepared to not exclude the material on that basis, as the plaintiff could no doubt have fixed this, or given evidence in the witness box confirming its correctness, in circumstances where the State did not require him for cross-examination.

97. [194]

    However objection is also taken on the basis that the document is largely in the form of submissions. To the extent that the document seeks to canvas the circumstances of the plaintiff’s guilty pleas to the breaches of the ESO, and alleged actions of Detective JH in connection with the ISO, I reject it as irrelevant. I am of the view that the portions of this document quoted above are relevant, and I admit them, noting that to the extent that it is hearsay its use is limited to the fact of the plaintiff making this assertion. The document is otherwise inadmissible. The remainder is largely irrelevant as evidence, addressing the plaintiff’s conditions of parole and his incarceration for breach of parole in 2018, and includes a significant amount of inadmissible hearsay.

98. [195]

    To the extent that some of it may be seen as more in the nature of a (legitimate) submission than evidence (such as paragraph [3] regarding reliance on decision of Hamill J in State of New South Wales v Carr [2020] NSWSC 643 (“Carr”)) I take this as part of the plaintiff’s submission in these proceedings.

99. [196]

    The plaintiff’s handwritten affidavit affirmed 14 December 2021, with the date of 13 December 2021 at the top of the individual pages, labelled 2F, contains his statement “the Police, @ the Behest of CSNSW attempted to manipulate C.D into saying she had concerns for her safety.” Other than its demonstration of threat and vindictiveness referred to further below, the State objects to this affidavit as it relates to matters that are very old and of very limited relevance to the present application. I regard the portion of it just quoted as relevant to this application, limited to the fact that the plaintiff has stated it. Much of the rest is a prolonged complaint about his legal representatives in the ESO breach proceedings, which is not relevant and excluded.

100. [197]

     Sergeant AC made a statement dated 26 October 2018 for the parole board hearing which the plaintiff relies upon. The officer indicated that she contacted CD at the request of the Crown Solicitor acting on behalf of the Commissioner of Corrective Services. She told CD that the representative of Corrective Services wanted her to be asked some questions regarding the plaintiff, but that she did not have to answer questions if she did not want to. CD confirmed that she had been in a relationship with the plaintiff, but it ended, and she did not want to say why. She told Sergeant AC that the plaintiff had called her that morning, so she called Parklea Correctional Centre to ask for her number to be removed from his call list. CD stated that he had also tried calling her daughter even though she was not on his call list. When asked whether she had any concerns for her safety if he was released on parole she said “I don’t want to answer that and no one knows where I live, I haven’t told anyone.”

101. [198]

     The plaintiff relies upon an email sent by CD to the NSW Parole Authority dated 6 May 2019 in which she states that while she had previously said that she did not wish to have contact with the plaintiff, this was based solely on the way she was being harassed by the media. She decided to sever contact with the plaintiff because she had been mentioned by name in the media and had been chased by journalists and photographers. She stated, regarding the parole condition that he not contact her, that she had no fear regarding being approached by him, had never seen him act in a violent manner, supported his release into the community, had no reservations maintaining a friendship with him, and would be happy to hear from and see him again.

102. [199]

     The entirety of these two documents are objected to by the State on the grounds of relevance. I regard them as relevant because although they relate to the plaintiff’s period on parole rather than the ESO, they represent a tangible example of a police officer contacting a person with whom the plaintiff has been in an intimate relationship, and are in contrast with his representations as to the police treatment of CD. They assist indirectly in understanding the plaintiff’s contention that officers administering the ESO have interfered with his relationships. These two documents, formerly exhibits A and B before Garling J, are admitted as exhibit 22.

103. [200]

     The plaintiff’s affidavit of 10 November 2021 labelled 2S, which is in the same terms as his affidavit of 12 January 2022 labelled 2R, says, after stating that the police had seized and accessed electronic devices he had given to his partner CL:

104. [201]

     The State objected to the entirety of this affidavit on the grounds of relevance, as it concerned prison conditions not related to the present application and alleged misconduct by police and the DPP in connection with past criminal proceedings. I uphold the objection regarding past prison conditions. The paragraph just quoted is relevant, given the plaintiff’s attempt to argue that the current ESO has been weaponised to result in “victim hunting” against him. However if it is based on anything it is based on hearsay, and thus inadmissible as evidence of the truth of the matters any person reporting to Mr Monteiro intended to assert. I limit its use to the fact that the plaintiff has said this.

105. [202]

     This affidavit also contains the plaintiff’s first mention in time, on the material before me, of exposing the legal system in his named book (although as noted below, the plaintiff had commenced making threats to expose members of the legal system prior to the ESO being imposed). The third paragraph of page 2 of this affidavit is limited in its use (to the fact that the plaintiff became seething towards what he calls “the so-called justice system”, and the fact of his making the allegations in this paragraph) and redacted pursuant to r 4.15 of the UCPR. The fourth paragraph of this page is limited in its use to the fact that he stated it. I do not regard it as necessary to redact it as scandalous. In the first two paragraphs of page 4 the plaintiff provides a criticism of the sentencing judgment of the District Court judge who had sentenced him in relation to the ESO breaches. I am not of the view that this material needs to be excluded or redacted as scandalous. Its use is limited to understanding the chronology of his developing issues with the legal system. Apart from the paragraphs I have mentioned, the rest of the affidavit is rejected, as it is irrelevant. I reject the affidavit dated 12 January 2022 which is labelled 2R, as it is identical to that labelled 2S but with the later date. I also reject the affidavit labelled 2AA as but for that marking it is identical to 2S.

106. [203]

     One of the plaintiff’s affidavits affirmed on 12 January 2022 (that labelled 2G) contains the complaint that hidden from Fagan J was a “confirmed and irrefutable example of a woman attempting set me up with kidnap and rape (i.e. [JB]).” This woman is not the same person as the Community Corrections officer with the same initials also referred to in the evidence. The plaintiff states “I have since learned that plain clothed police contacted [JB] prior to her false allegations against me and hinted to attempt to set me up. They have been doing it for years.” I regard this statement as relevant, but if based on anything is hearsay insofar as it is relied upon as to the truth of the fact that police so acted. I limit its use to chronicling the evidence the plaintiff relies upon to support his claim about Fagan J having been given false evidence, and the ESO being used as a source of “victim hunting”. He proceeds to outline evidence purportedly available to show that this allegation was in fact false, which I reject as partly irrelevant and otherwise hearsay.

107. [204]

     The same ruling applies in relation to a further affidavit of 12 January 2022 labelled 2O, which is in the same terms as 2G but with four paragraphs ([51]-[54]) added. Those four additional paragraphs criticise points 22 to 25 of Dr Parker’s first Risk Assessment Report dated 21 November 2019. That report was before Fagan J and is annexed to the 16 December 2024 affidavit of EM. The plaintiff’s assertion that he was going to be able to establish those points to be untrue by reference to cross-examination of all persons mentioned, and via access to intelligence, case notes and so on, is not relevant. Dr Parker was not required for cross-examination in relation to his taking of this material into account. The criticised portions relate to [JB].

108. [205]

     The issue of JB is addressed also in the part of the plaintiff’s affidavit of 3 May 2024 contained at Court Book page 504. The decision of Fagan J is submitted to be unlawful insofar as this allegation by JB was a building block in his Honour’s determination.

109. [206]

     I uphold the State’s objection to paragraphs [2]-[4] of the plaintiff’s affidavit of 16 April 2021, labelled 2P, which relate to plea negotiations pertaining to the ESO breach proceedings. The affidavit dated 16 April 2021 labelled 2Y is identical to 2P bar the label, and is rejected.

110. [207]

     According to another affidavit of the plaintiff of 12 January 2022, labelled 2L, on 10 January 2022 he said to an officer of Community Corrections that Corrective Services and police contacted his partner and former partner to encourage them to withdraw character references they had authored on his behalf, which he stated was to ensure he had no women having anything positive (to say) about him. What the plaintiff said out of Court to the officer is hearsay. If what he said was based on anything, it was based on what he was told by others which makes this evidence remote hearsay, and also includes inadmissible opinion evidence. I limit the use of this evidence to its indication of an occasion where the plaintiff said to someone that this had occurred.

111. [208]

     In his affidavit dated 3 May 2024 the plaintiff asserts at paragraph [12] that his 2008 conviction was wrongful, and that:

112. [209]

     The relevance of this is the fact that the plaintiff has said it, contextualising his claim about the officers administering the ESO. It is clearly inadmissible to prove the truth of anything asserted. The rest of the paragraph contains assertions of one female in particular and females generally making false rape allegations.

113. [210]

     In the same affidavit the plaintiff again addresses the issue of CD. This appears on page 497 of the Court Book. He states that “CSNSW formed a conspiracy with the corrupt NSW police to approach [CD] to write a statement saying she was fearful of my release for the sole purpose of harpooning my application for parole. In essence, the NSW police and Corrective Services were verballing women and victim hunting. Worse than this, they were attempting to convert all my contacts into victims.” I admit this representation, and those in the two paragraphs above, for the limited purpose of the fact that the plaintiff has said it.

114. [211]

     In the same affidavit the plaintiff asserts, at a point appearing on page 499 of the Court Book, that while he was on parole CSNSW had police pull him and his fiancée CL over “to terrorise her in an attempt to have her leave me, approached [CL] et al to attempt to have them write a police statement against me (ie further victim hunting AKA pervert the course of justice)…” I admit this representation for the limited purpose of the fact that the plaintiff has said it.

115. [212]

     The 1 May 2024 affidavit of JZ, Jane’s daughter, indicates that at some stage a Community Corrections officer telephoned her and questioned her about the plaintiff’s associations and whether she felt safe in his presence. She was instructed to keep the call confidential. This telephone call upset her.

116. [213]

     Jane’s partner of eight years, DP, swore an affidavit on 3 May 2024. He states that Community Corrections contacted him and subjected him to probing questions regarding the plaintiff’s character, past, and any perceived threat he may pose to him or his family. There is no detail provided other than that, yet he states that this contact caused significant harm to him, his relationship with Jane, and their respective livelihoods and friendships. The State objects to this affidavit as there is no detail, it is of little to no probative value, and there is a substantial danger that the evidence would be misleading or unfairly prejudicial. I am prepared to admit the fact of the contact, but agree that it is of very little probative value. The rest of the affidavit is of no probative value and is rejected.

117. [214]

     The plaintiff’s affidavit of 21 September 2021, labelled 2X, was filed in the Court of Appeal proceedings. It is irrelevant, and includes hearsay evidence. The State takes issue with paragraphs [12] and [15] under r 4.15 of the UCPR, being assertions regarding persecution by the Court, and “puppet” judicial officers. Part of paragraph [12] says “This is the corrupt, cruel and spiteful government department; Supreme Court judges continue to empower to decimate my life. This Court is now the problem, not Corrective Services NSW.” I read that sentence, as relevant to the number and timing of the plaintiff’s statements to that effect. Its use is limited. It is not so scandalous as to require redaction. The rest of the affidavit is rejected as irrelevant and containing hearsay.

118. [215]

     The plaintiff’s affidavit of 14 December 2021, labelled 2F, filed originally in the CCA, after paragraphs [34]-[37] quoted above, states at [38] “This Court has licenced / empowered this corrupt / spiteful body / gang CSNSW / NSW Police to run / wage a war / vendetta on my life. It is out of Control.” He then states that he has employed a private investigator to investigate and expose family, friends and associates of judges who engage in specified criminal activity. He states that “Evidence is being gathered, including video & still photographs.” He threatens to sit outside the Supreme Court with such photographs of the “judge’s (sic) spawn / friends” on picket signs for the rest of his life if the ESO and sentencing in connection with it continues. He then makes one of the redacted allegations.

119. [216]

     The plaintiff concludes this affidavit by stating that his contacts are sending details of wilfully blind judgments / rulings and explanations to the Chinese Government, and that he is writing a book about the legal system.

120. [217]

     According to the plaintiff’s affidavit of 12 January 2022, labelled 2L, on 10 January 2022 he made scandalous allegations about a judicial officer to an officer of Community Corrections. This evidence, being paragraphs [7] and [8] of the affidavit, is limited in its use, and will be redacted.

121. [218]

     The plaintiff’s affidavit dated 31 January 2022, labelled 2Z, was seemingly prepared for his CCA bail application on 9 February 2022. It is mostly irrelevant, and inclusive of inadmissible hearsay and opinion material. Paragraphs [13] and [14] are read as relevant to the plaintiff’s demonstration of animosity towards the Court and legal profession and preparedness to make scandalous allegations in that respect, but limited to that purpose and redacted pursuant to r 4.15 of the UCPR.

122. [219]

     The plaintiff ends his 67 points in heading [10] of his affidavit of 18 September 2025 with a “Warning to the Court” threatening again physical harm to himself, and reputational damage to members of the judiciary and legal profession, if the ESO remains in place. He then makes a number of scandalous allegations which will be limited in their use, and redacted.

123. [220]

     In his affidavit of 3 May 2024 the plaintiff states, at a point of the affidavit appearing at Court Book page 505, that “The last time the police conducted a home visit with Corrective Services NSW, the police forced me to permit Corrective Services to photograph my legal instructions to my then lawyer, [RC], breaching attorney client privilege.”

124. [221]

     At [10](xi) of his affidavit of 18 September 2025 the plaintiff asserts that he has directly observed officers accessing his mobile phones and entering into his emails. At [10](xxvi) he states that Community Corrections unlawfully photographed his emails which violated legal privilege.

125. [222]

     I uphold the defendant’s objections to the following exhibits before Garling J pressed by the plaintiff, on the basis of lack of relevance, using the exhibit nomination in those proceedings: exhibit C (and additionally on the basis that it contains hearsay), J, K, N (noting that the first page confirming enrolment was not objected to, but was separately tendered by the plaintiff as exhibit 13 so does not require further tender) and Q (this having been explained above). I also reject as irrelevant exhibit G before Garling J, being a direction from Community Corrections Officer HF on 1 July 2020 to the plaintiff that he was to ensure he was contactable at all times via a phone service for both supervision and electronic monitoring services, and the pages that were exhibit S before Garling J, being pages 7 to 15 of an undated electronic monitoring audit report. Exhibit M before Garling J comprised three pages of an irrelevant email chain, and I have not admitted this document. I reject the bundle of documents that was exhibit V before Garling J. Insofar as much of this relates to PD, there is nothing in this bundle that adds in a way relevant to the plaintiff’s case to the PD material described above. Insofar as it relates to flying helicopters, it comprises the plaintiff’s own emails advocating his stance on that situation, and does not add to the objective documentation I have referred to above. This bundle is full of irrelevant material, inadmissible hearsay and opinion evidence. There may be relevance in the limited fact that the plaintiff has made various representations as set out in these documents; but admitting it even for this limited purpose would involve an undue waste of time.

126. [223]

     In his affidavit of 18 September 2025 Mr Monteiro states that if the interviews between him and Drs Eagle and Furst are considered, nothing can be reasonably deducted to support their conclusions. He states that what he actually said to them was that they should be asking him about his societal inclinations, views towards women, views towards violence, views towards society, aspirations in the community, how he operates in the community and whether he uses drugs.

127. [224]

     In the course of arguing his application that Detective GB be required to attend Court for cross-examination the plaintiff forwarded electronically to the Court two documents. One was his affidavit of 3 May 2024 that was already provisionally in evidence, having been read in the proceedings before Garling J and included in the Court Book. The other was an undated document, MFI 28. The undated document suggests CSNSW had recently returned two mobile phones seized by Detective [GB] as part of an investigation into breaching the ESO by not disclosing sexual activity with a woman. CSNSW allegedly kept the phones for several months and initially refused to return them unless he returned the phones to factory settings, which requirement was not pressed, and the phones were returned. The document indicates that Mr Monteiro advised Detective [GB] that demanding he delete all the data from his phones is attempting to pervert the course of justice, as he had stated that the data is evidence.

128. [225]

     The terms of the plaintiff’s evidence referred to above at [186], regarding the home visit during rain where Detective GB refused to remove his shoes and threatened the plaintiff’s dog, bears upon his application that he be compelled to give evidence.

The defendant’s evidence

1. [226]

   The defendant read three affidavits of EM. One, affirmed on 16 December 2024, included the following annexures:

   1. (1)

      Her curriculum vitae;

   2. (2)

      Risk Assessment Report prepared by Dr Richard Parker dated 21 November 2019; and

   3. (3)

      Formal ESO warning issued to the plaintiff on 1 November 2024 in relation to breach of Condition 19b of his ESO.

2. [227]

   The second affidavit of EM was affirmed on 4 April 2025. The third, affirmed on 9 September 2025, annexed a further written direction to the plaintiff dated 8 August 2025.

3. [228]

   The defendant also read two affidavits of Jamie McLachlan, solicitor. One, affirmed on 4 April 2025, exhibited documents as exhibit JM-1 (which became exhibit 1) which included:

   1. (1)

      Criminal history – bail report of the plaintiff produced by NSW Police Force dated 13 March 2025. This was supplemented by an updated history dated 19 September 2025;

   2. (2)

      OIMS notes received from Corrective Services NSW dated 23 October 2024 – 11 March 2025;

   3. (3)

      OIMS notes provided by the Department of Communities and Justice (“DCJ”) dated 17 March 2025 – 31 March 2025;

   4. (4)

      Supplementary Risk Assessment Report prepared by Dr Richard Parker dated 31 March 2025; and

   5. (5)

      Warning issued to the plaintiff dated 1 November 2024.

4. [229]

   Jamie McLachlan’s second affidavit, affirmed 9 September 2025, exhibited as JM-2 (which became exhibit 6) the following:

   1. (1)

      Supplementary Risk Assessment Report by Dr Richard Parker dated 21 August 2025;

   2. (2)

      OIMS Notes dated 3 April 2025 – 25 August 2025;

   3. (3)

      Direction dated 17 July 2025;

   4. (4)

      Police Facts and Court Attendance Notice (“CAN”) for the plaintiff’s outstanding charges relating to Joanne; and

   5. (5)

      Police Facts and CAN for Joanne’s outstanding charges relating to the plaintiff.

5. [230]

   The defendant relied upon the affidavit of Johanna Fisher, solicitor, affirmed on 7 February 2024, addressing the background to the proceedings, developments since the imposition of the ESO and further material relied upon by the defendant, and correspondence with the plaintiff. Annexures A and B to the affidavit was correspondence purportedly related to orders in early 2024 for the filing of the plaintiff’s material, but which also included complaints by the plaintiff. Exhibited to this affidavit was exhibit JF-1 (which became exhibit 2), which included amongst other things:

   1. (1)

      Expert Report of Dr Kerri Eagle dated 15 May 2020;

   2. (2)

      Expert Report of Dr Richard Furst dated 15 May 2020;

   3. (3)

      Judgment of Fagan J – State of New South Wales v Monteiro (Final) [2020] NSWSC 881 dated 8 July 2020;

   4. (4)

      Remarks on Sentence of Bright DCJ dated 16 June 2021;

   5. (5)

      Facts Sheet in relation to the plaintiff’s outstanding charges (H 417215894); and

   6. (6)

      JusticeLink Outcomes in relation to the plaintiff’s outstanding charges (H 417215894);

   7. (7)

      Sentencing judgment of Norrish SC DCJ in relation to the plaintiff’s index offence, dated 9 April 2009; and

   8. (8)

      Selected OIMS case notes.

6. [231]

   The defendant read the affidavit of Johanna Fisher affirmed on 13 December 2024 which provided further information regarding the chronology of these and related proceedings. The following documents were annexed to it:

   1. (1)

      Sealed copy of the orders made by Campbell J on 24 February 2022;

   2. (2)

      Sealed copy of the orders made by Bellew J on 4 November 2022;

   3. (3)

      A copy of Harrison CJ at CL’s judgment delivered on 17 July 2024 – Monteiro v State of New South Wales [2024] NSWSC 864;

   4. (4)

      Sealed copy of the orders made by Harrison CJ at CL on 2 August 2024;

   5. (5)

      Sealed copy of the orders made by the Common Law Registrar on 11 November 2024;

   6. (6)

      Sealed copy of the orders made by Garling J on 28 November 2024; and

   7. (7)

      Copy of the JusticeLink extract reflecting the plaintiff’s entry of pleas of not guilty in relation to his outstanding fail to comply with ESO charge matters (first in time) which were next listed on 24 January 2025 at Gosford Local Court for committal.

7. [232]

   The defendant also read the affidavit of Luke Sampson affirmed on 13 December 2024, together with exhibit LS-1 (which became exhibit 3) which included the following:

   1. (1)

      OIMS notes dated 2 January 2024 – 23 October 2024;

   2. (2)

      Bail report dated 18 October 2024;

   3. (3)

      Updated Risk Management Report dated 30 and 31 January 2024;

   4. (4)

      Supplementary Risk Management Report dated 12 January 2024;

   5. (5)

      Letter of instruction to Dr Parker dated 6 December 2024;

   6. (6)

      Supplementary Risk Management Report dated 13 December 2024;

   7. (7)

      Facts sheet re H 417215894 dated 7 August 2024;

   8. (8)

      DPP Charge certificate re H 417215894 dated 21 March 2024;

   9. (9)

      Numerous CSNSW Formal Warnings (dated 14 November 2023, 20 December 2023, 28 December 2023, 10 May 2024, 14 June 2024), and ESO Directions (dated 4 January 2024, 8 May 2024, 5 June 2024);

   10. (10)

       ESO Report to Attorney General dated 13 June 2024; and

   11. (11)

       CAN re 97544936 dated 7 August 2024.

8. [233]

   The transcript of proceedings before Cavanagh J on 23 and 24 March 2020 was tendered as exhibit 5. The transcript of evidence of Dr Eagle and Dr Furst at the final hearing before Fagan J on 16 June 2020 was tendered as exhibit 4.

9. [234]

   The defendant tendered as exhibit 14 email correspondence forwarded on behalf of the plaintiff to my chambers on 23 September 2025 at 6:01 pm, the response to the parties on 23 September 2025 at 6:15 pm and from the plaintiff to my chambers, copying in the Crown Solicitor’s Office, on 23 September 2025 at 8:16 pm. Exhibit 15 was an email forwarded on behalf of the plaintiff to the Associate to Harrison CJ at CL and to my chambers, on 24 September 2025 at 11:21 am.

10. [235]

    I will endeavour to deal with this evidence to some extent chronologically, but without going over the material before Fagan J except to the extent it arises because of the plaintiff’s submissions or the defendant’s Notice of Motion.

11. [236]

    Prior to the hearing of the State’s application for interim orders, the Commissioner of Police argued a public interest immunity claim in respect of documents previously produced to the Court under subpoena. Parts of an iCOPS summary produced had been redacted, and public interest immunity was argued in support of not producing nor allowing access to those redacted portions. The term iCOPS is described in Dr Eagle’s report, referred to below, as a full NSW police report including Events, Intelligence and Charges. In support of its application the Commissioner of Police read an open affidavit and a confidential affidavit. The latter conveyed to his Honour the substance of the material that had been redacted from the iCOPS summary, which related to a police source.

12. [237]

    His Honour upheld the privilege claim: State of New South Wales v Monteiro (aka Lowe) (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 349. It was made clear during the course of submissions on 23 March 2020 that none of the information said to be the subject of public interest immunity was being relied upon by the State in its substantive application. In upholding the claim his Honour found at [22] and [28] that there was no public interest in disclosure of the redacted material, and it would not assist Mr Monteiro at all in resisting the State’s application.

13. [238]

    The outline in Dr Eagle’s report of the plaintiff’s criminal history includes matters for which he has been charged and not convicted. This includes in NSW, charges of sexual intercourse without consent, attempted sexual intercourse without consent, and committing an act of indecency. Dr Eagle noted that the plaintiff’s first sexual charge was on 13 August 1989 but the prosecution determined to not proceed with that charge.

14. [239]

    Dr Eagle noted that in Queensland the plaintiff was charged with rape but discharged of it on 23 June 2006. She confirmed that Interpol information reveals that there is a warrant for the arrest of the plaintiff in Georgia, United States of America, for charges relating to the alleged battery of his fiancée who was two months pregnant. Statements available to Dr Eagle relevant to that woman, LD, indicated that she alleged the plaintiff sexually assaulted her after luring her to Sydney for a holiday, on the night of her arrival, as a result of which she became pregnant. The alleged assault two months later included an attempt to strangle her. There is a permanent restraining order in place, and an indication that charges would be proceeded with if the plaintiff ever returned to the United States of America.

15. [240]

    In a section of her report headed “Additional Unsubstantiated Allegations”, Dr Eagle refers to a full NSW police iCOPS report which described a complaint made by JB to police on 18 April 2019 of sexual assault by the plaintiff a week earlier. Dr Eagle set out aspects of JB’s allegations and noted that charges were not initiated against Mr Monteiro in response to these allegations. Dr Eagle referred to other allegations in the police report.

16. [241]

    In Dr Eagle’s application of the Psychopathy Checklist Revised (“PCLR”) she includes, in providing a score of 2 for pathological lying (contributing to the overall score of 30) that “His account of his relationships is completely inconsistent with, not only the multiple allegations made by various intimate parties including the Index Offence, but also the fact/existence of the allegations themselves as a reflection of significant problems within many of his intimate relationships.”

17. [242]

    In setting out her application of the Static 99R Dr Eagle confirmed that she provided a score of 3 for prior sex offences.

18. [243]

    Dr Furst’s report notes that the plaintiff has been charged with a number of sexual offences as set out in his Criminal History, however ultimately these charges were either withdrawn, subject to a direction that there be no further proceedings, or, in the case of the 1994 allegation of sexual assault, an acquittal. He additionally noted further material relating to allegations which did not proceed by way of charge; namely material relating to the complainant AT, material relating to the complainant LD, and the numerous complaints to police which appear in the iCOPS report. Dr Furst noted his instructions that “The State in its case is not contending the Court give any weight to the facts underpinning the 1994 alleged sexual assault matter (for which he was acquitted) save to the extent the fact of him being charged with that offence (although acquitted) is relevant to any risk assessment instrument that is utilised (if at all). If it is relevant please indicate that fact in your opinion and the manner in which it is factored into the assessment.”

19. [244]

    Dr Furst set out in more detail the allegations relevant to these charges and other uncharged acts. Regarding sexual offending, this included attempted sexual intercourse without consent and commission of an act of indecency charged in August 1989, in relation to which the Director did not proceed after committal for trial. The plaintiff was charged in January 1994 with multiple counts of sexual intercourse without consent, and an aggravated act of indecency, as well as improper use of a telecommunication service. This complainant was JH and the plaintiff was found not guilty by jury verdict in 1998. Dr Furst refers to an indictment of the same date regarding a complainant T (perhaps AT, referred to in his and Dr Eagle’s report). He refers to the fact that the complainant / victim FD had also alleged sexual intercourse without consent, but the Director did not proceed to trial on the sexual assault charge. He also refers to the alleged rape in Queensland on 23 June 2006, dismissed in the Southport Magistrate’s Court on 20 February 2007.

20. [245]

    Dr Furst provided the following additional information: “NSW Police File – report in relation to alleged conduct / offending: Allegation of sexual assault by JB… with subsequent police investigation not supporting her version of events.”

21. [246]

    A 22 August 2016 Corrective Services NSW Psychology Report was discussed in Dr Furst’s report. He noted that the authors of that report included a score of 3 on their application of the Static-99R instrument for the item “prior sexual charges” as the plaintiff had over six of these. In his own use of the Static-99R risk assessment instrument, Dr Furst described the individual items, including the score of 3 (highest available) for prior sex offences (excluding the index offence, but including charges as well as convictions) as the plaintiff had more than six.

22. [247]

    Doctors Furst and Eagle both confirmed in their evidence before Fagan J that the Static-99R score is based on the number of sexual charges, whether or not resulting in conviction. Dr Furst went further to explain the evidence which demonstrates that people charged and acquitted are actuarially at higher risk of offending than those convicted and sentenced.

23. [248]

    The plaintiff’s case includes an assertion that the forensic psychiatrists whose evidence Fagan J relied upon did not ask him the right questions. Some aspects of their reports relevant to this issue are thus set out.

24. [249]

    Dr Furst set out the plaintiff’s family relationships, and his closeness to one brother and step-brother at the time of interview. He reported in considerable detail upon traumatic aspects of the plaintiff’s childhood and adolescence, and the impact of this on him.

25. [250]

    He wrote of the plaintiff’s reported travel overseas, work in the entertainment industry in America including working for a famous R&B singer, songwriting, modelling and acting including appearing in television commercials. He noted Mr Monteiro’s report of his relationship history. He reported other travel including to Brazil in 2006, where the plaintiff was said to have researched and developed a humanitarian environmental project for disadvantaged children, something he intended to return to post-release. Whilst there he was also said to have taught English to disadvantaged children on a volunteer basis. He reported his work as a freelance photographer before his incarceration.

26. [251]

    At page 5 and pages 17-19 Dr Furst reports at length on the plaintiff’s history and attitudes regarding drugs and alcohol.

27. [252]

    Dr Furst’s report includes the plaintiff’s statements to him of his focus on Buddhism and yoga to manage emotional problems and apparent post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms while in custody. The plaintiff had discussed his commitment to Buddhist meditation and yoga health in general which helps him to stay calm. He recorded the plaintiff’s statement that he “wants to evolve spiritually.” Dr Furst refers to counselling sought and obtained by the plaintiff. He noted his love of flying helicopters, describing this as the best counselling available, providing him a feeling of freedom. The report included Mr Monteiro’s commitment to his studies, writing a safety filter/accident prevention program which relates to threat and error management in aviation.

28. [253]

    At pages 6-7 of his report Dr Furst includes the plaintiff’s advice regarding his attitudes towards women; which was to emphasise that the senior deities in (his) Buddhist faith are women, that he respects his partner CL, and denies misogyny. He had spoken of his partner in positive terms, and described their relationship as very close. He described their joint meditation, and Mr Monteiro’s report of her as an amazing influence and a gentle soul. He included the plaintiff’s description to him of growing organic vegetables and providing food to the needy in the local area. He wrote about the plaintiff’s documentary relating to the harmful effects of plastics and solvents in the world’s oceans, and his stated wish to “do good things” in making this documentary.

29. [254]

    Dr Furst described the plaintiff’s interaction in the interview as controlling, insisting on recording it, and the plaintiff as difficult to engage with and repeatedly diverted from questioning. Dr Eagle similarly described the plaintiff’s conduct in interview as controlling. The entire reports of each expert addresses comprehensively the plaintiff’s cognitive processes.

30. [255]

    Dr Eagle’s report indicates that the interview took place on 30 April 2020, for 1 hour and 45 minutes. She notes that it was recorded by the plaintiff despite her objection to this course. The interview was required to be brought to an end because of internet coverage problems, and the rest of the information from the plaintiff was provided in the form of written responses to written questions asked of him. The report addresses the issues Mr Monteiro’s affidavit states he is concerned were left out.

31. [256]

    By way of example, at paragraph [13] Dr Eagle discusses the plaintiff’s report regarding his relationship with CL, his organic food project, study, other projects such as his environmental documentary, and his charity work involved in donating vegetables. She includes his report that he is supported by his father and brothers, his discussion of flying helicopters, and his equation of his WHS qualification with work saving human lives. She notes that the plaintiff denies current drug and alcohol use. At paragraphs [34]-[37] she sets out his report regarding his history of drug and alcohol usage, and the fact that he has never been terminated from employment for intoxication. At [92] she discusses his report regarding relationships, at [96] his goals and interests, at [97] his written response of a functional attitude towards sex. Dr Eagle includes the plaintiff’s written report of having the support of his partner getting him through his post-traumatic stress disorder. She included the plaintiff’s report that he tries to live positively, and that he was currently undertaking volunteer work for a gentleman in Somersby.

32. [257]

    EM is employed by Corrective Services NSW as the Manager of the Metropolitan ESO team and has held this role since October 2021. Her educational qualifications include a Bachelor of Social Science (with Distinction) Sociology and Criminology from the University of Western Sydney, a Diploma of Leadership and Management from Western Sydney University College and a Graduate Certificate in Business from the Public Sector Management Program.

33. [258]

    EM has had knowledge of the plaintiff since August 2016 when she was the Community Corrections Representative at the State Parole Authority at the State Parole Authority Private Meeting for [his] first consideration of release to parole. In February 2018 EM met the plaintiff for the first time during a field visit in her capacity as the manager of Gosford Community Corrections. Upon the imposition of the plaintiff’s ESO, Gosford Community Corrections had carriage of the plaintiff’s supervision. However due to the plaintiff’s repeated hostility towards Gosford Community Corrections staff and lack of meaningful engagement, his supervision was transferred to the ESO team on 6 May 2024.

34. [259]

    EM’s responsibilities include the operational management of the ESO team and management of staff that provide intensive supervision and case management to high-risk individuals who are subject to ESOs. She has held diverse roles within Community Corrections at senior levels. She provides high level strategic advice and briefings to Executive Management and frontline staff. EM leads and facilitates multidisciplinary stakeholder engagement, consultation and negotiation; and recommends solutions that support decision-making around risk management and intensive rehabilitation.

35. [260]

    EM has acquired detailed knowledge relating to supervising offenders in the community including the most appropriate techniques of supervision to manage the risks they present and assist in their rehabilitation and reintegration into the community through her current position and prior experience as the Acting Director of the Community Corrections Metropolitan West District and various frontline management roles within Community Corrections.

36. [261]

    EM is familiar with the plaintiff, and extensive records held by Community Corrections in relation to him. Her evidence explains the role and objectives of the ESO team, and the supervision and formulation of plans relevant to the plaintiff. Like all ESO offenders, the plaintiff is supervised at a high risk rating which requires weekly face to face contact. His case plan is reviewed at two monthly intervals. EM’s affidavits explain the plaintiff’s outstanding criminal charges, and formal warnings provided to the plaintiff.

37. [262]

    Relevant to the plaintiff’s support in the community, EM’s affidavit of 16 December 2024 indicated that this was primarily his father and two female supports (presumably Jane and AF). EM’s affidavit of 9 September 2025 acknowledges the plaintiff’s loss of his accommodation at his father’s property due to his eviction therefrom. She notes that the plaintiff had expressed distrust towards the ESO team regarding accommodation decisions and accused staff of conspiring to render him homeless. On 21 August 2025 the plaintiff declined an offer of referral for assessment for community or offender supported accommodation.

38. [263]

    Relevant to employment, EM’s affidavit of 16 December 2024 states that the plaintiff had recently informed the ESO team that he was not actively looking for employment because of a shoulder injury, but that he plans to mentor disadvantaged youth in Sydney with charitable work. She confirmed that the ESO team considers employment to be a prosocial and protective factor, and encourages the plaintiff in this regard. Her affidavit of 4 April 2025 confirmed that the ESO team continued to encourage the plaintiff to find employment on his own initiative. As at the time of swearing EM’s 9 September 2025 affidavit the plaintiff remained unemployed.

39. [264]

    EM noted that condition 10 prohibits the plaintiff from leaving NSW without the approval of the Commissioner of Corrective Services. She explained the factors that will be taken into account in assessing any application for such approval. She set out reasons for the refusal of the plaintiff’s request to travel to Queensland for asbestos removal training for employment purposes on 20 December 2024. This included because of the limited information provided by the plaintiff, including no clear itinerary or return proposal, which meant that no risk assessment could be undertaken. The NSW Police Force ESO Investigation Team (“ESOIT”) does not support non-essential travel interstate as there is no reciprocal arrangement with other States regarding an ESO. Given the plaintiff’s poor response to supervision and the lack of detail, Corrective Services NSW Psychology did not support such travel. I note that OIMS records tendered by the plaintiff record Dr Parker’s recommendation against allowing travel to Queensland including because of outstanding court matters with the prospect of incarceration if convicted, the grant of conditional bail in relation to these, the requirement to attend the Supreme Court within the next 28 days, poor compliance with supervision, and the risk of the plaintiff not returning.

40. [265]

    EM recorded the plaintiff’s indication in early February 2025 of considering “fly in fly out” employment interstate. When the plaintiff was asked for more detail so that this proposal could be considered he responded that he would send the relevant DSO a photograph of himself on Broom Beach in high visibility clothing. April and July 2025 requests by the plaintiff to travel to Queensland were not approved because insufficient detail was provided by the plaintiff.

41. [266]

    EM’s evidence is that throughout 2024 the plaintiff’s behaviour to CSNSW staff had escalated, with him often presenting as guarded, threatening, accusatory and abrasive. He frequently declined to answer questions, and his written correspondence was often abusive, rambling and litigious. EM’s 4 April 2024 affidavit refers to his unchanged response to supervision and behaviour and set out some relevant OIMS notes in support of her description of his abusive, threatening and vindictive conduct.

42. [267]

    The manner in which the conditions of the plaintiff’s ESO address his particular risk factors is set out comprehensively in EM’s affidavits. She states that although the plaintiff generally attends weekly meetings he remains resistant to engaging in any meaningful discussions; “His attitude is described as being consistently oppositional, argumentative, and abusive. On most occasions, he refuses to answer questions posed by his supervising officer and is often distracted by his personal grievance about being subject to his current Order.”

43. [268]

    EM described the importance of electronic monitoring in enabling effective tracking of the plaintiff’s activities and locations, including identification of patterns that may suggest he is in a relationship or visiting places to form new relationships. The ability to create exclusion zones is explained. The requirement to not stay overnight at an address without approval or allow overnight guests at his residence without approval was stated to be crucial given the plaintiff’s history of starting relationships without notifying Community Corrections. EM described the plaintiff’s refusal to meaningfully answer questions about his movements in late June 2024 when his electronic monitoring detected him to be in Sydney overnight. This type of regular response was suggested to hinder the identification and assessment of potential risk-related scenarios, particularly concerning intimate or sexual relationships. Further, as the plaintiff refuses to allow contact with third parties, there was difficulty in monitoring and understanding his behaviour and relationships, including any intimate partner relationships.

44. [269]

    In her affidavit of 16 December 2024 EM stated that if the Court acceded to removing the conditions the subject of interlocutory consideration by Garling J, “this would significantly reduce the supervising team’s ability to independently corroborate and verify the Plaintiff’s assertions.” Her evidence contained in the affidavit of 4 April 2025 includes a description of the inability of the ESO team to monitor or verify the plaintiff’s movements in the community, through retrospective auditing, following the removal of electronic monitoring. She states:

45. [270]

    EM set out many examples of the plaintiff’s resistance to providing information to the ESO team regarding his movements, subsequent to the order of 20 December 2024. EM’s affidavit of 9 September 2025 indicates that since the completion of her last affidavit the plaintiff had regularly failed to report as directed and refused to disclose his location and movements in any detail. She described the necessity for electronic monitoring to mitigate risk and enhance community safety, particularly because of the plaintiff’s consistent refusal to provide accurate information regarding his movements and information as to where he is staying overnight. Such monitoring would also allow restriction and enforcement of apprehended domestic violence orders, such as that in place for the protection of Joanne. She states of the relationship with Joanne that the ESO team was limited in their ability to respond in a timely manner to emerging concerns for her safety.

46. [271]

    Dr Richard Parker holds Bachelor of Science degree, Graduate Diploma in Community Counselling, Graduate Diploma in Applied Psychology, Master of Education (Hons), and a Doctor of Philosophy. Dr Parker’s Master’s degree was completed by thesis alone and investigated the predictive abilities of offenders, probation and parole officers, and an actuarial risk assessment instrument. Dr Parker’s PhD investigated the role of moral emotions (shame, guilt and pride) in the onset and maintenance of sexual offending. Dr Parker is a member of the Australian and New Zealand Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abuse (ANZATSA) and a Clinical and Research member of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers. Dr Parker has been registered as a psychologist since 1996. He is referred to in parts of the defendant’s evidence as a senior psychologist in the High Risk Offender Team and Corrective Services NSW.

47. [272]

    As noted above, Dr Parker’s 2019 report was before Fagan J. Aspects of it are described at paragraphs [45]-[48], [51], and [58] of his Honour’s judgment. This included Dr Parker’s assessment of the plaintiff as falling within the highest category of risk for sexual, violent and domestically violent offending, with such dangers considered most acute within an intimate relationship. His Honour recorded Dr Parker’s opinion that any intervention imposed to influence the plaintiff would be assessed, by him, as hostile and strongly resisted. His Honour described the general consistency of Dr Parker’s opinion with that of Drs Furst and Eagle. At [63] his Honour confirmed his unreserved acceptance of Dr Parker’s opinion concerning the risk of re-offending posed by the plaintiff, the need for supervision to ameliorate that risk and the strong desirability of an ESO with appropriate conditions to continue in force for five years.

48. [273]

    Like Dr Parker’s 2019 report, his three subsequent reports are based on review of extensive documentation, and not on interview of the plaintiff (which was refused by the plaintiff when requested, when on parole in 2019). Dr Parker’s 12 January 2024 report (in exhibit 3) states that since the imposition of the ESO the plaintiff has engaged in various business ventures but it is unclear whether or not they have been profitable due to his refusal to discuss these with his DSOs. He noted the plaintiff’s apparent belief that by obtaining an ABN and working for himself “I have decided to remove this condition via acquisition of an ABN”. Dr Parker described the plaintiff’s response to supervision as superficial and hostile. Almost without exception he has continually been evasive and has regularly been extremely abusive. He describes decreased family support.

49. [274]

    Dr Parker expressed the opinion that the plaintiff’s pattern of abusing those supervising him was motivated by a desire to escape demands and restrictions placed on him by others, and revenge. He regarded this as underpinned by a chronic sense that the world is a hostile place, with a need to fight back (beat or be beaten). He opined that the plaintiff’s narcissism leads him to reject any idea that is different from his own, so that when he is challenged he perceives he is being attacked, which requires him to attack back. Dr Parker adopted a phrase used by another of “Demand avoidance / force compliance” to describe the plaintiff’s conduct. When the other does not comply with the plaintiff’s wishes his emotional state escalates, can get out of control, and he enters a rage state. Dr Parker expressed the view that “His behaviour may merely be verbal, but may escalate into physical and/or sexual violence at this point.”

50. [275]

    According to Dr Parker, the plaintiff’s angry behaviour has become, if anything, worse while under the ESO. He expressed the view that the plaintiff has come to believe he is the ultimate source of truth in the world, such that it is not worth considering the perspectives of others; and that this is entrenched, and the plaintiff is virtually impervious to external influence. He opined that the plaintiff’s deficit in perspective taking can be seen in the affidavits filed before the Court (referring to material that is not reflective of an affidavit before me, but in not dissimilar terms to affidavits the plaintiff does endeavour to rely on in the current proceedings). The fact that the plaintiff fails to understand that such action cannot increase his chances of a favourable outcome highlights the depth of his psychological issues.

51. [276]

    Dr Parker reported on 12 January 2024 that the plaintiff remains in the highest risk categories for sexual, violent and domestic violence offending. His categorisation as an aggressive psychopath (this was addressed in detail in his 2019 report) was also said to be consistent with this risk rating. Dr Parker expressed the opinion that the plaintiff does not appear to have any significant concerns about his world view, and has strongly defended it against attempts to influence him in a different direction. Consequently, he said, change appears neither likely nor imminent. Suggestions in the report that risk may have increased do not require further consideration given subsequent reports.

52. [277]

    In Dr Parker’s report dated 13 December 2024, he noted that the plaintiff appeared to be suffering financial strain which was not previously the case (other evidence indicates that the plaintiff’s access to his father’s resources had been limited by this time). He referred to the plaintiff’s outstanding charges (the two referred to in his previous report plus a fresh charge laid on 7 August 2024). He described the material reviewed as showing the plaintiff to launch into vitriolic attacks against anyone who does not do as he wishes, including people administering the ESO and the judiciary, quoting an email sent to the Supreme Court registry on 7 June 2024 (which is not otherwise in evidence).

53. [278]

    Dr Parker noted that the existence of a friend who has been the plaintiff’s “mentor and life coach figure” (presumably Jane or AF) had not produced improvement in his behaviour. His response to supervision remained superficial, argumentative and hostile. Almost without exception the plaintiff has been continually evasive, and has regularly been extremely abusive to staff. There had been no reduction in his risk of committing a further serious offence.

54. [279]

    With specific consideration of electronic monitoring, Dr Parker referred to the risk scenarios set out in his original report, centring around violence in relationships. It was stated to be consequently important that supervising officers have knowledge of his relationships. Given the plaintiff’s hostility and combative attitude towards supervising officers, it was said to appear unlikely that he would disclose these unless he perceived he was likely to get caught. Electronic monitoring allows supervising officers to keep track of the plaintiff’s movements, and removal of this was suggested to essentially give him carte blanche to form relationships without the knowledge of his supervising officer. Similar issues were suggested to arise regarding his access to email and devices.

55. [280]

    Dr Parker expressed the view that although the breach allegations from September 2023 were still before the Courts, the facts alleged demonstrated coercive control of the relevant woman (said to have stayed overnight, in breach of the ESO) in the terms of his messaging to her within 24 hours of meeting (those facts are before the Court in tab 7 of exhibit 3).

56. [281]

    As to the conditions surrounding employment, Dr Parker described similar risk. He described a two-fold danger. Firstly, the plaintiff may declare an intimate relationship a business one. Secondly, he may utilise employment to form relationships which are then concealed.

57. [282]

    Dr Parker described the need for permission to stay overnight somewhere other than his approved residence as part of the suite of conditions that assist to detect whether an intimate relationship has developed, and whether there is risk involved.

58. [283]

    In this report Dr Parker described the plaintiff as continuing to fall within the highest categories of risk for sexual, violent and domestically violent offending.

59. [284]

    Dr Parker’s report of 31 March 2025, in exhibit 1, referred to the finding by Fagan J that the plaintiff’s vindictiveness and threats in the offending surrounding the index sexual assault shed light on his ability to manage his own anger, confirming his own analysis of OIMS case notes suggesting he still maintains a similar level of vindictiveness, and continues to make threats. A number of these were set out. Dr Parker referred to the very negative opinions expressed by Doctors Eagle and Furst in their reports before Fagan J regarding the prospect of the plaintiff changing, and expressed the view that the case notes reviewed by him suggest there has been no significant change in the plaintiff’s personality disorder.

60. [285]

    Dr Parker indicated that the fact that there has not been a further sexual assault offence does not change the assessment of risk, because the statistical analysis relied upon before Fagan J would indicate two thirds of people with a similar Static-99R score would not be charged with a fresh sexual offence within five years, and because the plaintiff has been subject to the ESO, including electronic monitoring and other intense supervision, which has been shown to suppress offending.

61. [286]

    Dr Parker expressed the view that there has been no improvement on any dynamic assessment of the plaintiff, and no reduction in his risk of committing a further serious offence. He stated that the risk scenarios outlined in his original report remain valid. The plaintiff continues to fall within the highest categories of risk for sexual, violent and domestically violent offending. There was no indication of reduction of risk level since his 2019 report, and the dangers were considered most acute within an intimate relationship.

62. [287]

    Dr Parker referred to the OIMS case notes suggesting that the plaintiff regarded the ESO as ineffective with the electronic monitoring condition removed. He opined that the most likely function of the plaintiff’s intimidatory behaviours was to nullify the containment effects of the ESO. He stated “From my ten years’ experience of assessing and interacting with offenders who have been supervised under ESOs, I cannot recall a case where a person subject to an Order has been able to undermine the containment aspects of an order more than Mr Monteiro.” He expressed the opinion that it was highly unlikely the plaintiff would not engage in similar behaviours in any future intimate relationships, for the similar purpose of getting his partner to do what he wants, when his partner behaves in a manner that he does not like.

63. [288]

    Dr Parker reinforced the plaintiff’s history of quickly striking up relationships that rapidly sour, making it important to be able to monitor his relationships. Electronic monitoring was described as important in the plaintiff’s case because he was not someone who was open and co-operative with Community Corrections. He expressed the view that the plaintiff’s hostile demeanour appears to have negated some of the aspects of supervision, with the attendant danger that his supervision has been less rigorous than other offenders with similar risk profiles. Electronic monitoring would provide important backup to assist DSOs in asking the right questions. He expressed the view that the removal of a number of conditions, particularly electronic monitoring, has seriously degraded the ability of the ESO to contain the plaintiff’s behaviour.

64. [289]

    Dr Parker’s final report, dated 21 August 2025, notes the plaintiff’s charges of breach of ESO and attempting to stalk or intimidate intending Joanne to fear physical or mental harm (domestic violence offence), as well as Joanne’s outstanding charge of assaulting him and property damage. Dr Parker states that all are dealt with as allegations as they have not been adjudicated by the Courts.

65. [290]

    Dr Parker states that on about 5 April 2025 the plaintiff formed a relationship and subsequently resisted attempts by the DSO to disclose his prior offending to his partner, a disclosure which finally happened about five weeks after the relationship started. He refers to the OIMS notes which confirm disclosure on about 9 April 2025, and immediately following steps by the plaintiff to prevent communication with her. He sets out extracts of the relevant OIMS notes supporting that proposition. Dr Parker states that the reported reaction of Joanne on 16 May 2025 when the facts of the index offence were read to her indicates she was not previously aware of the details of this offence (although her unchallenged evidence in this Court indicates that the plaintiff did tell her of his “backstory” and prior conviction, it is not clear what he told her).

66. [291]

    Dr Parker describes the plaintiff as continuing to engage in behaviours serving to defeat the aims of supervision. On the topic of Joanne, this included his revelation, in the period before she was permitted to stay overnight because there had not been disclosure to her, of their driving at about 1 am to a location such as a service station or McDonalds with closed circuit television cameras, placing themselves to be photographed and otherwise taking photos of themselves, then returning to his house at 4 am. He refers to some of the notes since his last report of the plaintiff’s ongoing abuse of and threats to staff, and repeated claims to have lost his mobile telephone. Dr Parker suggests that the plaintiff’s yelling at, threatening and abusing staff has seriously impeded staff from conducting supervision in the normal manner he has observed in the many ESO cases he has been involved in.

67. [292]

    Dr Parker again completed the ACUTE-2007 with no change in score. He expresses the opinion that given the lack of improvement on any dynamic assessments, there has been no reduction in the plaintiff’s risk of committing a further serious offence.

68. [293]

    Extensive OIMS notes for the period of a little over two years prior to the hearing were tendered by the defendant. Those in exhibit 1, covering the period from 23 October 2024 to 11 March 2025, included a formal warning provided on 1 November 2024 for failure to adhere to condition 19b of the ESO, because of the discovery on 23 October 2024 that five messages had been deleted. There are other notes of the detail of messages (generally to women) found to have been deleted from the plaintiff’s telephone.

69. [294]

    Across the different sets of OIMS notes tendered, there are hundreds of separate instances of threatening, accusatory, abusive and aggressive behaviour from the plaintiff to many different officers of Community Corrections, and threats of physical harm to himself and litigious and reputational damage to members of the judiciary, legal profession and CSNSW. These are made in emails and text messages sent by him, voice messages left, and officers’ case notes of telephone and face to face conversations. Having read all of these notes, there can be seen to be a high level of repetition of themes and phrases, with consistency between the notes of different officers, between his writing and his alleged verbal conduct, and between these and his evidence and submissions in this Court. In almost all instances Jane has not been present during the conversation, although the records suggest about 20 occasions when she has been (either because of her attendance at a face to face meeting, inclusion in a three way call, or proximity to the plaintiff in a call using a phone on speaker).

70. [295]

    The OIMS notes document a significant failure of the plaintiff to co-operate with supervising officers in relation to his obligations to report intimate relationships. The written submissions for the defendant dated 5 May 2025 at pages 25-31, and 35-36, summarise a number of relevant entries in this regard. I will not set out the detail of the entries, but these submissions are supported by the primary records tendered, and comprehensively establish the plaintiff’s subversive engagement with his supervising officers in relation to this crucial issue.

71. [296]

    On this same topic, Dr Parker’s January 2024 report refers to the plaintiff most recently having commenced a relationship with a wealthy woman from Queensland, whom he apparently had not met face to face (citing December 2023 OIMS notes). A 30 January 2024 updated Risk Management Report by a Community Corrections Officer notes that the plaintiff has declared a series of short-term, fleeting relationships while under supervision. The length and nature of these had generally not been verified despite repeated efforts from his supervising team to do so. On 21 September 2023 the plaintiff was arrested and charged with two counts of failing to disclose a sexual relationship and allowing a person to stay at his residence overnight without approval. This charge is still unresolved – however aspects of the plaintiff’s communications with the relevant woman within 24 hours of meeting her are referred to above in discussing Dr Parker’s evidence. An OIMS note dated 23 April 2024 referred to “that pig Thai slut and her false allegations which you pushed her into telling the lies…”. The plaintiff was described in the January 2024 report as having prevented Community Corrections from contacting disclosed intimate partners by refusing to provide contact details or providing outdated contact numbers.

72. [297]

    The OIMS notes in exhibit 6 (April to August 2025) indicate conflicting information from the plaintiff as to when he met Joanne – initially suggesting it was two or four days prior to 9 April 2025 when he first referred to having had an “intimate beautiful meeting” with her; at later times saying he had been friends with her for 3 months before the two weeks as an intimate partner. As noted in discussing Jane’s evidence, she referred to a romantic relationship from December 2024.

73. [298]

    The OIMS notes suggest that the plaintiff has been conscious of the reduced capacity to supervise him because of the deletion of the electronic monitoring requirement. For example on 17 April 2025 he is recorded as having said that he can make it so officers have no clue where he is, rendering the material utility of the ESO completely useless and without purpose, or ability to mitigate any so-called or purported risk.

74. [299]

    A number of OIMS notes in exhibit 6 include discussions with the plaintiff about Joanne’s criminal charges, and allegations made by her, and include the CANs and police facts for each.

75. [300]

    The 30 January 2024 updated Risk Management Report referred to above notes that since the recommencement of supervision after the plaintiff’s release from custody on 17 February 2022 he remains resistant to engaging in any meaningful discussions. His attitude is described as consistently oppositional, argumentative and abusive. Case management was largely focused on his compliance with the conditions of the ESO and monitoring his forming of any new relationships, employment and overall stability. The plaintiff was described as regularly refusing to answer questions regarding his behaviour, activities and relationships, and demanding that all questions be put to him in writing via email. His employment was unclear and appeared sporadic. Work ventures had generally not been able to be verified, because the plaintiff was resistant to providing consent to Community Corrections to contact third parties to verify employment. It was stated that “Particularly of late his hostility has impeded the effectiveness of attempts to manage his risk factors.”

76. [301]

    Signed by a Community Corrections Officer and Manager on 29 and 31 May 2024 respectively, their report to the Attorney General stated that since the last (annual) report there had been a decline in the plaintiff’s family support. It was stated that he no longer has a relationship with his brothers, and support from his father was impacted due to ailing health and cognitive decline. Although at that time he was no longer supported financially by his family, he continued to reside in the rural property owned by his father. His last known employment was for a one month period from July to August 2023, working for a concrete assessor. Regular enquiries were reported to have been made regarding any new employment or business venture, including use of his ABN; however the plaintiff was said to deny being engaged in employment nor receiving unemployment benefits.

77. [302]

    This May 2024 report indicated that the plaintiff had disclosed several intimate relationships with women in the preceding twelve months; however they were short lived. The most recent was with a woman who lived in Queensland, but the plaintiff was denied permission to travel interstate as Community Corrections was unable to verify the information provided. The plaintiff was described as overtly hostile towards CSNSW employees and evasive when asked specific questions regarding employment and intimate relationships. It was stated that he continued to breach the ESO by failing to comply with written directions that relate to his intimidating behaviour and abusive language to staff. All such breaches were being dealt with locally by way of warnings being issued.

78. [303]

    Other aspects of the defendant’s records relevant to the issues before the Court include the indication in exhibit 3 of limited contact by officers of Community Corrections with the plaintiff’s brother and father, this initiated by the plaintiff’s relatives. On one occasion the plaintiff called his father in the presence of the DSO and placed him on loudspeaker, aggressively blaming his father for not providing him with the money for a solicitor against Corrective Services. Dr Parker’s January 2024 report confirms that, whereas the plaintiff previously had the support of his father and one brother, that brother was no longer on good terms with plaintiff. Notes in early and late August 2025 indicate that the plaintiff was expressing grievance that Detective GB had colluded with his brothers to have him evicted from his father’s house.

79. [304]

    Apart from the references to employment contained in the reports of EM, Dr Parker, and other departmental officers that I have referred to above, the OIMS notes in exhibit 2 (16 August 2023 to 30 January 2024) include entries relevant to the plaintiff’s case that the ESO restrains him from working. On 18 August 2023, a supervising officer sent an email to the plaintiff in terms including the following:

80. [305]

    The plaintiff responded to this email in highly abusive terms including making criminal allegations against a judicial officer, insulting and threatening the supervising officer and predicting deserved terminal cancer to all the staff and their families (a repeated theme of the plaintiff’s threats to staff).

81. [306]

    On 31 August 2023 the plaintiff was reminded that helping out a friend at a café was a form of volunteer work, and details were sought. On 5 December 2023 the plaintiff (who had an outstanding application to travel to Queensland for personal reasons) advised his DSO that he also needed to attend upon PD for work purposes. He said he had only just found out about this.

82. [307]

    The OIMS notes in exhibit 3 indicate that the plaintiff mostly resisted attempts to speak about employment. On 12 March 2024 he referred to starting a service feeding indigenous homeless people in the inner city with an indigenous friend. When reminded of the need to provide details of this, he swore at the officer and was hostile. He raised a similar issue in a vague capacity, referring to this being done in conjunction with Jane to avoid ESO involvement, on 5 July 2024. On 28 March 2024 when he made complaint about work, his gambling addiction, and his life being destroyed, he was offered referrals for employment services, gambling support and mental health assistance. This resulted in abuse to the officer, requiring the call to be terminated. On 8 May 2024 the plaintiff said he was in business partnership with Jane. On 14 May 2024 he said he was reliant on Jane for funds. On 23 May 2024 he said he was in a business venture with Jane, this being a “loophole” to condition 13. On 4 June 2024 in response to a text message sent by the plaintiff to a supervising officer, the officer confirmed their understanding that the plaintiff was not working, that speaking to an employer would be considered on a case by case basis depending on what the employment was, and would not be done without first obtaining the plaintiff’s consent. On 5 June 2024 the previous direction not to engage with or attempt to communicate with any female he is aware has been a victim of sexual abuse or violence in relation to any of his employment or business ventures was removed.

83. [308]

    A note dated 6 September 2024 includes the plaintiff’s report that he works for Jane and has done for a period of time, as she has many business interests he assists in including farming bees. On 10 September 2024 two business options he and Jane were considering, under Jane’s ABN, were disclosed. A note dated 13 September 2024 reiterated the officers being supportive of the plaintiff finding employment.

84. [309]

    A note dated 27 September 2024 records an officer having asked the plaintiff for his expectation of the next steps following his completion of a two day WHS training session, to which he indicated that to pursue this he would need to work in an industry and as such he will place this on hold. He said that for now he will continue to do work for and with Jane, and spoke of his racehorse knowledge and help for Jane and their associates with online betting / Sportsbet, a past job of his. He stated that their associates’ knowledge of racing could attract persons with sums disposable money to guide them into placing winning bets, which he said was legal.

85. [310]

    On 4 October 2024 the plaintiff referred to mentoring youth via a gym in Redfern. On 8 October 2024 he named a male with whom he was discussing business options.

86. [311]

    OIMS notes from February to April 2025 indicate that the plaintiff attempted to undertake two weeks training with PD in asbestos removal in Queensland, culminating in written advice 16 April 2025 “Your interstate travel request has not been approved by the Commissioner, Corrective Services NSW. A clear itinerary for your travel plans were not provided, nor the information required to conduct a comprehensive risk assessment of the proposed interstate travel request. Should you provide more specific travel details, your request will be further considered”. The decision not to approve the plaintiff’s request to travel to Queensland is explained at paragraphs [11] – [17] of EM’s affidavit affirmed on 4 April 2025. She noted among other things the lack of information provided, and the absence of reciprocal interstate arrangements for the supervision of persons the subject of an ESO.

87. [312]

    Further OIMS notes from June 2025 reflect the plaintiff engaging in a hostile way with officers regarding his wish to travel to Queensland for training, with insufficient information being provided. On 6 August 2025 the plaintiff said he was going into business with Jane, and on 8 August 2025 he described her as his business partner.

88. [313]

    OIMS notes in the defendant’s evidence indicate that the plaintiff has been advised that there is capacity for his requirement for a meeting once a week to be conducted outside work hours if he has a job, but that as he is not working such time slots are required to be reserved for people who are working.

89. [314]

    Relevant to the allegations of the plaintiff and Jane regarding the events of 26 July 2024, OIMS notes in exhibit 3 refer to an SMS sent by the plaintiff which appeared to be an email sent to a Gmail account, with an offer of employment with PD as a trainee asbestos auditor requiring on site experience in Queensland for up to 12 months and work required in other States. In the ensuing phone call the plaintiff became enraged when asked about the Gmail account, screaming abuse loudly and very aggressively for over five minutes. Although the purpose of the call was to discuss the offer of employment with PD, this was not achieved due to the extreme level of abuse from the plaintiff. Concerns were held for the safety of Jane, based on the extremity of the plaintiff’s aggression, and the officer arranged for a welfare check by local police.

90. [315]

    The same officer, JB, sought assistance three days later in light of concerns that there was an inability to mitigate risk, the plaintiff was unable to be managed in the community, there was routine failure to answer questions in supervision about associations, activities and movements, and the extreme level of anger and abuse directed towards the DSO when asked questions. Reference was made to the plaintiff not providing any ongoing consent to speak to Jane, his outstanding charges, and his refusal to provide consent to speak to any person in his life that may assist with supervision.

91. [316]

    As to the plaintiff’s concern about legal privilege, a note dated 27 May 2024 records an offer for the plaintiff to sit beside the DSO to conduct any phone search to ensure information related to legal matters is not accessed.

Procedural rulings

1. [317]

   I referred earlier to the order of Chen J on 15 September 2025 extending the time for the plaintiff to file and serve his evidence and submissions in reply to 4:00 pm on Thursday 18 September 2025. This order was responsive to the plaintiff’s Notice of Motion filed before his Honour as Common Law Duty Judge on 15 September 2025, seeking leave to file urgently further material in respect of his revocation application under s 13 of the Act, and in respect of the same proceedings that “subpoenas be granted & served + the leave already been granted to be enforced & subpoenas to be issued.”

2. [318]

   The balance of the orders that were sought, stood over by Chen J to Wright J on 17 September 2025, and Wright J to the substantive hearing before me, do not need to be set out. A Notice to Produce to Court dated 15 September 2025 listing Joanne, to give evidence on 22 to 24 September 2025, was formally abandoned by the plaintiff. A Notice to Produce to Court listing Detective GB to give evidence on 22 to 24 September 2025 was argued and dismissed by me. An additional subpoena to produce with subpoena notice and declaration, undated and seemingly unfiled, sought amongst other things that Detective GB or another named police officer produce a number of things to Court, including “iphone X”. The plaintiff argued an application that a previous mobile phone of his in police custody be produced to Court in connection with the 2020 report of Dr Eagle, and I dismissed that application.

3. [319]

   The basis on which production of the mobile phone was sought was to play the plaintiff’s recording of his interview with Dr Eagle. As set out above, Dr Eagle’s report clearly addresses the issues the plaintiff submits she failed to ask him about. There was no forensic purpose in spending close to two hours in Court playing any such recording.

4. [320]

   Regarding Detective GB, I am aware from the defendant’s evidence that Detective GB was one of a number of officers who arrested the plaintiff in January 2023 for failing to comply with his ESO conditions and failing to appear in accordance with bail conditions, in September 2023 for failing to comply with a condition, and the informant in relation to the charges arising from the plaintiff’s alleged conduct in August 2025 contrary to the direction that he have no contact with Joanne and allegedly attempting to intimidate her. OIMS notes in the defendant’s evidence confirm that Detective GB was present when another officer read the facts of the index offence to Joanne in May 2025.

5. [321]

   I have referred above at [186] to the plaintiff’s evidence about Detective GB and his dog on a home visit. On the application that Detective GB be compelled to attend to give evidence, the plaintiff forwarded to my chambers at lunch on Tuesday 23 September 2025 a copy of his affidavit dated 3 May 2024 (which was otherwise provisionally before the Court on the substantive applications as it was read in the proceedings before Garling J and included in the Court Book) and another undated and unsworn document headed “Affidavit” which is not otherwise before me and which was marked as MFI 28.

6. [322]

   The second of these documents states that Detective GB seized two cell phones “recently” as part of an investigation into not disclosing consensual sex with a woman (presumably referring to the outstanding charges from September 2023). These are alleged to have been given to Corrective Services by police, and retained for several months, initially refusing to return them unless they were returned to factory settings, which request was then abandoned and the phones returned to the plaintiff. The plaintiff states that he advised Detective GB that such a request was attempting to pervert the course of justice as the data was evidence.

7. [323]

   The evidence before the Court pertaining to AF includes some references to Detective GB or someone acting on his behalf contacting her. The plaintiff’s unsuccessful tender of documents in category 11 of MFI 15 included one email by which Detective GB forwarded an email sent from the plaintiff’s brother to a DSO to another person, which as I indicated above did not support the plaintiff’s contention that Detective GB had conspired with his brothers to make him homeless.

8. [324]

   The assertions in the plaintiff’s evidence in the current proceedings about Detective GB have not been the subject of challenge. Quite apart from any other procedural problems arising from the form of the notice, and the lack of any automatic entitlement to cross-examine Detective GB if the Court did compel his attendance as a witness, there is simply nothing of substance warranting Detective GB’s attendance for the current proceedings.

9. [325]

   I note further that when the plaintiff was arguing the admissibility of the large body of material he wished to tender relating to the outstanding charges he and Joanne face following the breakdown of their relationship in July 2025, he complained that the legal representative of the DPP on the bail application before McNaughton J in connection with the charge laid against the applicant in August 2025, did not inform her Honour that Joanne was also an alleged perpetrator of a crime of violence against Mr Monteiro. It may be accepted that this is not included in the facts sheet, and that Detective GB was the informant. Assuming Detective GB was aware that there had been charges laid against Joanne, the lack of reference to that in the facts sheet against the plaintiff did not require his attendance for cross-examination in the current proceedings.

10. [326]

    Insofar as the plaintiff’s Notice of Motion dated 15 September 2025 seemed to encompass other unfiled documents before me, being additional Notices to Produce relating to the attendance of persons to give evidence, additional items in the Notice to Produce with Subpoena and Declaration referred to above, and a second Subpoena to Produce with Subpoena Notice and Declaration marked as filed on 15 September 2025 in relation to Detective EB producing other documents and items, the plaintiff had not yet adduced any evidence in support of any such applications, nor argued these, before he withdrew from the proceedings. To the extent that it is necessary to do so, I dismiss any such outstanding procedural applications that may have been before me.

The parties’ submissions

1. [327]

   The written submissions filed for the plaintiff on 22 August 2025 when he was represented focused on the psychological report of Mr Awit, and his opinion that the plaintiff was suffering from extremely severe levels of depression and anxiety at the time of the assessment. His opinion that trauma was experienced under the ESO, and that the ESO is significantly impacting the plaintiff’s ability to function and exacerbating his underlying mental health condition, was quoted. It was submitted that the secondary object of the Act, of encouraging the rehabilitation of offenders, had thus not been advanced at all by the ESO.

2. [328]

   It was also submitted that paragraph [36] of the CCA judgment on the plaintiff’s severity appeal suggested there had been an overzealous enforcement of the plaintiff’s ESO.

3. [329]

   Reliance was placed on the findings of Garling J that four and a half years had passed since the imposition of the order and there had been maturing, reflection by the plaintiff on the features of his behaviour that brought him before the Court, relationships with women that did not result in criminal charges, and time with those who had offered character references. It was submitted that despite the significant loosening of conditions by Garling J in December 2024 the plaintiff had not re-offended sexually.

4. [330]

   The written submissions of the plaintiff dated 18 September 2025 relied upon the decision of Hamill J in Carr, although submitting that his case was more compelling. He submitted that in his case there had been “The deliberate terrorism, criminal torture, criminal bullying and intimidation, unlawful imprisonment and malicious prosecution inflicted by state actors and representatives.” It was submitted that there was never any unacceptable risk and the ESO was imposed and weaponised deliberately to destroy his life. He relied on the fact that in 2019 JB made a false rape allegation against him, the Crown knew or should have known of that material, and excluded the material from its submissions (in the current proceedings, it would seem).

5. [331]

   Over a number of pages under heading C “Statement of Impact and Complaint” the plaintiff articulates his complaints that the ESO and its enforcement has ripped apart any progress he makes, leaving him destitute, powerless to work because of Corrective Services’ interference, and evicted because of collusion between Corrective Services and his brothers. He relies on mental ruin which has been deliberately inflicted. The conduct is submitted to have fractured friendships, driven wedges between him and his family and erased social supports. He submitted that he would show that EM had manufactured evidence. He submits that his human and civil rights have been breached. He submits that every element of his physiological, mental, emotional and spiritual health has been decimated by these processes, and he cannot work or meet basic needs.

6. [332]

   The plaintiff as part of his point C seeks disclosure of the material withheld from him, admission of this evidence improperly excluded, and a truthful account of how these proceedings were constructed.

7. [333]

   In part D of his submissions, dealing with risk, the plaintiff maintains that he was wrongly convicted of the index offence, that Fagan J wrongly relied on untested “police intelligence records” and withdrawn allegations, such that the imposition of the ESO was not properly founded and the effect has been catastrophic, oppressive, unnecessarily restrictive and a gross imposition on his civil rights, destroying his attempts to build a dignified life. The plaintiff returned to the submission that Fagan J wrongly relied on acquittals to establish unacceptable risk in section L.

8. [334]

   In part F of his submissions, responding to the State submissions as to his abuse towards ESO officers, he submits that he merely responded to the unreasonable and terrorising treatment inflicted upon him, they having destroyed his livelihood, relationships, housing, finances and basic existence. He also says they fabricated case notes.

9. [335]

   Section H contends that electronic monitoring serves no purpose and was found to be not necessary when he was released to parole in 2018. Section I articulates the plaintiff’s claim regarding Corrective Services and police “victim hunting” by encouraging false allegations against him, offering inducements to former partners to make false rape complaints.

10. [336]

    In section M the plaintiff makes allegations about his time in custody, and also submits that Dr Furst had a conflict of interest because he had previously treated him in custody. In section P the plaintiff refers briefly to the existence of judicial misconduct and bias, and his writing of a book about this. His concluding section Q threatens to appeal and go public with every detail if the order is not revoked.

11. [337]

    Mr Monteiro was provided with the opportunity to make opening submissions on 22 September 2025, and at other times also made submissions, these helping to understand his position on these applications. He submitted that he has filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal against the ESO which is to be heard with expedition, 99 % of the case notes are false, he relies upon Carr although submitting that more negative findings against the State should have been made in that case, and that his case for revocation is being used as a springboard to fight for compensation, which claim is going to be amended to seek $20 million. He submitted that the ESO was sought on the basis of lies and misleading information. He submitted that he was wrongly convicted of the index offence and there is to be a further appeal in relation to it. He submitted that it was significant he had not offended sexually in the time since his release to parole. He referred to the evidence about JB and police being able to word up his intimate and potentially intimate partners. He submitted that in many ways the order has been abused to destroy his life. He made many submissions about matters not ultimately in evidence or that could play no role in resolving the applications before the Court. He made threats as to what he would do if the ESO remained.

12. [338]

    I indicated above that some instances of Mr Monteiro’s affidavits that were objected to as being in the nature of a submission would be taken into account as part of his submissions. This includes part of his affidavit of 12 January 2022, labelled 2G, which contended that Cavanagh J admitted into evidence a “carte blanche” document, or blank piece of paper, refusing to divulge to the plaintiff the identity of the person making the statement or its contents. He submitted that this amounted to appealable error and rendered the entire ISO and ESO process unlawful and invalid, by which it followed that it was impossible for him to have been in breach of the ESO because it was imposed by a process poisoned by the carte blanche document. By this affidavit, affirmed on 12 February 2022 and filed in the CCA proceedings, the plaintiff thus sought his immediate release from prison because there was no valid ESO to have been breached.

13. [339]

    In this affidavit the plaintiff also contended that Fagan J used acquittals, cases and indictments withdrawn, rumour and innuendo as if convictions, which was a denial of natural justice and procedural fairness. He contended that the irrefutable example of JB attempting to set him up with rape and kidnapping was hidden from Fagan J, that police had hinted to her to attempt to set him up, and that police have been doing this for years. Many pages of this affidavit make allegations about JB. I have not received this as evidence, but have referred to it now as assisting with understanding the plaintiff’s submissions.

14. [340]

    The plaintiff contended that the combination of the situation alleged concerning JB, and Cavanagh J’s use of the “carte blanche” document, “is unconstitutional, unlawful and amounts to miscarriages of justice.”

15. [341]

    The plaintiff’s affidavit of 18 September 2025 contained a submission that the evidence advanced by the defendant before Fagan J was materially inaccurate and misleading and that this was known or ought reasonably to have been known. He submitted that the expert reports omitted relevant matters he had raised concerning his cognitive processing, prosocial values, community engagement, ethical and spiritual practices, charitable activities, professional pursuits and personal relationships. It was submitted that a fair and balanced professional opinion that took these matters into consideration would have been that he did not present an unacceptable risk within the meaning of the Act.

16. [342]

    The plaintiff continues “I further say that Act is unconstitutional in its design, administration, and practical application.” He asserts that he believes the HARE Psychopathy Checklist is controversial and subject to criticism. He contends that a misleading impression of risk was presented to Fagan J.

17. [343]

    The plaintiff’s affidavit of 18 September 2025 at [10](xxxi) contends that it is false for the State to say that he was given an 18 month sentence of imprisonment in the CCA, and that had the case been heard sooner he would not have received any prison sentence at all.

18. [344]

    At [10](l) and [10](li) of the same affidavit, the plaintiff contends that the State in the current proceedings has deliberately omitted material relating to the complainant JB, when this was used as a building block to establish “unacceptable risk” and there was evidence, being hidden, that showed he was innocent of JB’s allegations. He submits that this evidence must be put before the Court, should not have been accepted [by Fagan J] at face value, and shows why Royal Commissions have been necessary.

19. [345]

    The point is advanced at [10](lv) of this affidavit that “This Court has deliberately enabled, unlawfully, this unconstitutional and destructive order which has ruined every single aspect of my life.” The plaintiff threatens to go public if the order remains in place.

20. [346]

    At [10](lxiii) the plaintiff contends that the ESO has effectively made his life a full-time prison sentence because he cannot work, earn money, pay medical bills, go to a dentist, own or drive a car, nor maintain friendships.

21. [347]

    Over eight pages at the end of the plaintiff’s affidavit of 18 September 2025 he lists 202 points that would seem to be bullet points to assist him in advancing oral submissions. There were no such oral submissions advanced, and I disregard these pages of the plaintiff’s affidavit as nonsensical as submissions, and not constituting evidence.

22. [348]

    Although the plaintiff did not remain to indicate whether he placed reliance upon any aspect of them, I have read his three sets of written submissions filed in the proceedings before Garling J. These do not add anything meaningful to the submissions filed in August and September 2025. They are to a large extent not based on evidence that has been tendered before me or are not directed to issues that are relevant for my consideration.

23. [349]

    The plaintiff’s submissions dated 11 July 2024 spend many pages endeavouring to contradict prior charged criminal offences, whether having resulted in conviction or not. The plaintiff then acknowledges the judgment of Fagan J at [24], submitting that his Honour’s ultimate finding can only be based on the psychiatric reports which were not supported by a close examination of his criminal history as required by s 9(3) of the Act, such that “One is therefore left to ponder” how his Honour came to the conclusion as to unacceptable risk. The next point was that “It is the applicant’s submission that the ESO made by Fagan J in July 2020, was unlawful and not properly made.” It was submitted that because it was not properly made it must be revoked. It is additionally submitted that the orders are unnecessarily restrictive, a gross imposition on his civil rights, and not required for the safety of the community.

24. [350]

    In his submissions dated 16 December 2024 the plaintiff describes the ISO as unlawfully imposed because a blank document was tendered in the proceedings giving rise to it. I understand from this set of submissions that the plaintiff’s complaint is that anything that followed thereafter became “fruit of the poisoned tree” and unlawful. However by paragraph [6] of his submission dated 11 July 2024 the plaintiff acknowledged that Fagan J was entitled to make the ESO subject to being satisfied to a high degree of probability that he posed an unacceptable risk of committing another serious offence if not kept under supervision under the order.

25. [351]

    In his final submissions before Garling J, dated 16 December 2024, the plaintiff submits that the conditions are not reasonable, not workable, and impose an absolute restraint of trade in terms of employment. He submits that the supervisors restrain all work, life and social activities. He submits that Community Corrections do everything in their power to utterly and deliberately and unlawfully decimate his life and the lives of his network of supporters, via a laundry list of relentless, unlawful and horrific tactics. The submission was advanced that Community Corrections and NSW ESO police approached staff and management at Novati Constructions and Balmain Power Station billion dollar remediation project, where he was hired as a WHS Manager earning $4000 a week, and worded up management about his involvement in the criminal justice system, resulting in him being marched off the site. He submits he was offered a job by a personal injury lawyer where he was to source new clientele who had been victims of sexual assault as this is what the personal injury lawyer specialised in. The plaintiff submitted that the Community Corrections’ written direction to not refer female victims of sexual assault to the lawyer, and that he must not work with any female he learns has been a victim of domestic violence or sexual assault, was immediately revoked after being recently raised before Harrison CJ at CL.

26. [352]

    The plaintiff repeated and expanded to some extent upon his complaint about Cavanagh J and the fruit of the poisoned tree, such that the entire process became unlawful. It was submitted to have been unconstitutional to have photographed his legal instructions, and it was submitted that Detective GB threatened if the plaintiff did not permit Community Corrections Officer JB to photograph texts to his lawyer he would immediately arrest him. Ms TH from Gosford Community Corrections was submitted to be behind the requirement to travel by taxi from Cooma on 17 February 2022. It was submitted that legislation making for one man a crime that which is not a crime for another is unconstitutional.

27. [353]

    The defendant submitted that the plaintiff, as the party making the application under s 13 of the Act, bears the onus of persuading the Court that the ESO should be revoked. It was contended that inherent in any such application is an assertion by the moving party that particular circumstances warrant a departure from the previous order made by the Court. Contextually, it was noted that the Court may only make an order under the section if an application is made, and that the inclusion of s 13(1B) is indicative of the persuasive burden carried by the moving party. It was accepted that the Court’s discretion is not limited by the terms of s 13(1B), but that it must be considered in light of the subject matter, scope and purpose of the Act.

28. [354]

    The ESO was made in circumstances where Fagan J was satisfied to a high degree of probability that the plaintiff posed an unacceptable risk of committing another serious offence if he was not kept under the supervision of an ESO. The statutory scheme involving a significant threshold of proof, requiring consideration of the numerous factors set out in s 9(3) of the Act (and any other relevant matter) was submitted to have necessitated a detailed and considered process, such that s 13(1) should not be regarded as a general provision for review, or consideration of whether a different conclusion might have been reached upon the previous evidence. Given the statutory scheme, it was submitted that cogent evidence would be required to satisfy the Court that the order should be revoked.

29. [355]

    It was submitted that there had been no reduction in the risk of Mr Monteiro committing a serious offence, and that there are no other factors that suggest his circumstances have changed so as to render the ESO unnecessary. It was submitted that the changes to the conditions in December 2024 have constrained the ability of those supervising him to effectively monitor him, particularly in his relationships with women.

30. [356]

    It was submitted for the defendant that the CCA decision provides no support for the contention of overzealous enforcement of the plaintiff’s ESO, and that Mr Awit’s report does not meaningfully engage with the plaintiff’s well-established personality disorder nor the risk of him committing a further serious offence.

31. [357]

    Written submissions for the defendant regarding the use of unproven charges (being the currently unresolved charges laid against the plaintiff) were marked MFI 25. These referred to a number of authorities in which it has been held that evidence of information regarding uncharged acts may be relevant in considering applications under the Act, with allowance for their (reduced) weight.

32. [358]

    It was submitted that the available material does not begin to demonstrate that the supervision of the plaintiff under the ESO has prevented him from engaging in otherwise appropriate employment, education or training. On 24 September 2025 during closing submissions for the defendant, when I sought submission as to whether I was required to analyse all the OIMS notes tendered by the defendant, which had not been drawn to my attention by the plaintiff, to see whether there was material supporting his contentions on these issues, Senior Counsel for the defendant offered to provide a note regarding references to these issues in the OIMS. These were received, and have been marked MFI 33.

33. [359]

    It was submitted that the evidence of Mr Awit does not engage with the plaintiff’s well-established severe personality disorder, nor any assessment of risk.

Determination

1. [360]

   A preliminary point was determined on 22 September 2025; namely, that the hearing could proceed without notices to the Attorneys-General of the Commonwealth and of the States being required by virtue of s 78B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth). Although the word “unconstitutional” is used in some of the plaintiff’s documents, I accepted the submission for the defendant that there was not a matter arising under the Constitution or involving its interpretation. The defendant relied upon the decision of French J in Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v C G Berbatis Holdings Pty Ltd and Others (1999) 95 FCR 292; [1999] FCA 1151. His Honour determined at [14] that s 78B of the Judiciary Act does not impose the duty no matter how trivial, unarguable or concluded the constitutional point may be.

2. [361]

   I agreed with the defendant’s submission that there was no real or live constitutional issue in the proceedings. Although the word “unconstitutional” is used in points B and D of the plaintiff’s final amended summons (quoted above at [22]), neither the submissions written by senior and junior counsel filed for the plaintiff in August 2025, nor his further written submissions filed 18 September 2025, address such contentions.

3. [362]

   As noted above at [338], in February 2022 when the plaintiff was endeavouring to make collateral attacks on his convictions for breaching the ESO, in his CCA proceedings, he stated in an affidavit that the combination of the situation alleged concerning JB, and Cavanagh J’s use of the “carte blanche” document, made the ESO “unconstitutional”. As explained below, the plaintiff has misunderstood each of these issues.

4. [363]

   The plaintiff’s affidavit of 18 September 2025 asserts that the Act is unconstitutional by its design, administration and practical application. However no submission was advanced as to this proposition. At times the plaintiff uses the word “unconstitutional” as an adjective meaning to convey with force his assertion of unfairness of some action: see for example above at [342]. I note the plaintiff’s submission before Garling J dated 16 December 2024 (quoted above at [352]) to the effect that it was unconstitutional for his legal instructions to have been photographed, and (in respect of his breach convictions) for an act to be made a crime for one man which is not a crime for another.

5. [364]

   Legislation similar to the Act has been held to be constitutionally valid, in that the power to determine whether an order under the Terrorism (High Risk Offenders) Act 2017 (NSW) is not incompatible with the Court’s institutional integrity: Lawrence v State of New South Wales (2020) 103 NSWLR 401; [2020] NSWCA 248 at [73] (Bathurst CJ with whom Bell P and Leeming JA agreed). The Court of Appeal closely considered the decision of the High Court in Fardon v Attorney-General (Qld) (2004) 223 CLR 575; [2004] HCA 46.

6. [365]

   When the issue was raised early in the hearing on 22 September 2025, the plaintiff submitted (without any elaboration) that the legislation is impossible to defend, and that the ESO was unconstitutional because the directions given to him are unfair. He submitted that he had not read the Constitution, but common sense must prevail. He submitted that a lot was going badly in the world and a police State or “Fortress Australia” should not be permitted. The legislation was also submitted to be unconstitutional because “let’s not have trials”, moving to his allegations of criminal conduct by judicial officers. He submitted that his win in the CCA also established important case law going to a constitutional issue: that it is wrong to make an action criminal for one man which is not for another.

7. [366]

   Asserted unfairness in the implementation of the ESO does not raise a matter under the Constitution or involving its interpretation. The State legislature clearly has power to make non-compliance with a validly imposed order an offence. There is no merit in the plaintiff’s contention that applications for an ESO are unable to be defended and this is unconstitutional. As will be explained further below, the plaintiff has also misunderstood the effect of the CCA decision.

8. [367]

   As to the merits of the plaintiff’s application for revocation, I accept that there is a broad discretion, but I also accept the submission for the defendant that there is an onus on the plaintiff as the moving party to establish that the ESO should be revoked. The application is not an appeal against Fagan J’s decision. An application of that nature is permitted separately under the Act. Assertions that may be applicable to appeal proceedings, such as the denial of procedural fairness, or inadequacy of reasons (which the plaintiff is arguably asserting by his submission that one is “left to ponder” the basis for Fagan J’s determination) are not themselves points that would support revocation; as they do not address the merits of the ESO, imposed under an obligation to give the safety of the community paramount consideration. Success on grounds of this nature in the context of an appeal would generally require the reconsideration of the application.

9. [368]

   It is furthermore imperative to recognise that the defendant is not endeavouring to satisfy the Court now to a high degree of probability that the plaintiff poses an unacceptable risk of committing another serious offence if not kept under supervision under the ESO. That has already occurred. The defendant adduced significant evidence before Fagan J, much of which is not now before the Court. Nor are the submissions for the State or Mr Monteiro made before Fagan J currently before the Court. These proceedings are not amenable to an argument that the finding of Fagan J was not open on the material before his Honour, as might be pursued as a ground of appeal. To the extent that his Honour’s judgment is read as a standalone document, and in light of the parts of the evidence before his Honour that are currently before the Court, his Honour’s reasons explained comprehensively why the ESO was imposed.

10. [369]

    Despite these observations, a number of the plaintiff’s complaints can be clearly shown to be without merit, and are accordingly addressed lest the plaintiff was endeavouring to argue that flaws in the proceedings before Fagan J in combination with occurrences since the imposition of the ESO, warrant its revocation. Although the plaintiff did not remain to explain his submissions regarding the “blank document” before Cavanagh J, it would seem from the transcript of proceedings before his Honour, and his judgment on 23 March 2020, that the plaintiff is mistaken in his view that Cavanagh J relied upon a blank document to make the interim orders sought by the State. In a preliminary procedural application to which the defendant was not a party, heard immediately prior to the substantive hearing of the State’s application for interim orders under the Act, his Honour relied upon a confidential affidavit, which disclosed the content of redacted material in documents produced to the Court on subpoena, to resist the production of the unredacted documents or access being granted thereto, on the grounds of public interest immunity. The confidential affidavit and material the subject of the successful claim for public interest immunity formed no part of the material relied upon by the State in support of the ISO or other interim orders obtained before Cavanagh J such as his Honour’s directions regarding the plaintiff’s attendance upon Doctors Eagle and Furst, and their production of reports to the Court.

11. [370]

    As to the plaintiff’s point regarding the allegedly false sexual assault allegation made in 2019 by JB, and reliance by Fagan J on it and other allegations that did not result in convictions, the plaintiff has not placed in evidence the material he complains Fagan J took into account. I am able to glean part of it from the reports of Doctors Eagle and Furst, the plaintiff’s criminal history (as a bail report), and the judgment of Fagan J. I have set out above at [238]-[247] the relevant aspects of the evidence of the psychiatrists. In a section of the decision of Fagan J headed “Earlier criminal record and charges undetermined – s 9(3)(h)” his Honour set out at [17]-[22] details of charges which had been undetermined or resulted in an acquittal. His Honour then stated, at [23]-[25]:

12. [371]

    Thus his Honour very clearly and carefully stated that he did not directly rely upon any allegation that had not resulted in a conviction, but regarded this material as only indirectly relevant to the extent that it was relied upon by the experts in their application of risk assessment tools. The experts had carefully explained how the numerous sexual charges laid against the plaintiff were required to be taken into account in their application of Static-99R. This evidence is unchallenged and uncontradicted. The experts did not take the allegations of JB into account in their use of this risk assessment tool, as the police did not charge the plaintiff. The report of Dr Furst that was in evidence before Fagan J clearly states subsequent police investigation did not support her version of events.

13. [372]

    The plaintiff’s assertion of deficiencies in the reports of Doctors Eagle and Furst such that relevant material was withheld from the Court is similarly baseless. Apart from the fact that they are expert witnesses, with specialised knowledge the plaintiff does not have to ask the questions pertinent to forming their respective opinions, their reports addressed all the matters the plaintiff complains they left out: see above at [248]-[256]. The plaintiff has no expertise to allege that this information should have caused them to form different opinions, and has adduced no such expert evidence.

14. [373]

    These three contentions of the plaintiff – the “carte blanche” document before Cavanagh J, the information pertaining to JB’s allegations before Fagan J, and the asserted deficiencies in the expert reports just dealt with – are the only areas raised by him as potentially supporting his claim for relief B in his final amended summons. Although as I have said this would be more amenable to be addressed as an appeal ground, where the merits of the application for an ESO would thereafter be addressed again if the ground was made out, it has been argued by the plaintiff in support for revocation and is completely meritless. I will accordingly dismiss this claim for relief, and also note that the matters raised do not contribute in any way to the plaintiff’s application for revocation.

15. [374]

    I do not place any reliance upon the plaintiff’s currently outstanding charges. He is presumed to be innocent in relation to them. Their existence cannot support his case, and I am unable to articulate any rational process of reasoning in support of the State that does not undermine the plaintiff’s presumption of innocence. Stating that the material is relied upon as relevant to risk, or subject to weight, does not logically advance the defendant’s position in this case.

16. [375]

    However the evidence establishes that the plaintiff does not come before the Court with any favourable evidence at all of successful intimate relationships with women since the ESO was imposed. This is not to be held against him, but his situation is different from one of someone who might come to Court with evidence that he had been engaging positively in an intimate relationship or relationships.

17. [376]

    Fagan J’s reasons for imposing the ESO recognised that the plaintiff was then in an intimate relationship and that his then partner did not perceive risk to herself from the relationship. His Honour stated at [61] that “the evidence shows that he has had relationships of at least several months with numerous other female partners and that a number of these have ended with charges being laid against him of violence, sexual offending, stalking and intimidating or the like. The fact that the current relationship has continued for some months makes no difference to the basis upon which the two court-appointed experts have expressed their opinions or to the validity and impressiveness of their conclusions.”

18. [377]

    That relationship seems to have continued for not long, if at all, after the imposition of ESO (ending prior to the plaintiff’s incarceration from 18 August 2020 to 17 February 2022). The evidence details other disclosed intimate relationships with women the plaintiff’s supervising officers have not been able to speak to. I referred additionally to an alleged fiancée in Queensland in December 2023, with no evidence adduced from or about her. Although the plaintiff filed evidence from Joanne in support of a functional relationship of some weeks in May 2025, he no longer has the benefit of any such suggestion. Although I do not take into account the plaintiff’s outstanding charges relevant to her, the fact is that the relationship was very brief, and has ended. I accept the submission for the defendant that it is appropriate to take into account the spitefulness with which the plaintiff spoke of her in Court. Similarly, although I do not take into account the truth of outstanding charges arising from September 2023, I regard the plaintiff’s description of the woman relevant to those charges and his communications with her as demonstrative of his personality disorder.

19. [378]

    The defendant’s evidence comprehensively indicates that the plaintiff has significantly impeded the capacity of those supervising him under the ESO to monitor his intimate relationships, and that this has worsened since the removal of the requirement for electronic monitoring.

20. [379]

    As to the plaintiff’s general allegations of false OIMS notes, a number of things can be said. Despite service in advance of the defendant’s evidence, the plaintiff adduced no evidence that he disagreed with any particular note, or even category or type of allegation in the notes. His evidence and submissions have included numerous instances of disputing a note from 2019 made by EM, which the defendant did not rely upon. His submissions clearly state that his abuse is responsive to the unfairness with which he contends the ESO has been administered, which involves an admission of the abuse. Having read all the notes carefully, I am struck by their consistency, including as between multiple different authors, between recorded emails and text messages sent by the plaintiff and verbal comments, and between his abuse of staff implementing the ESO and his evidence and submissions filed in these proceedings.

21. [380]

    The plaintiff’s threats contained in his evidence and submissions in these proceedings plainly do not advance his case. Although the judgment of Fagan J refers to the plaintiff’s abusive and threatening conduct in the evidence before the Court in 2020, the impression I have is that this conduct has worsened. Without knowing all the material in this regard before Fagan J, this cannot be said with any certainty. However the fact that the plaintiff has continued to act this way, particularly after the warnings provided by Meagher JA and Beech-Jones CJ at CL I have quoted, is highly disturbing. I accept the unchallenged evidence of Dr Parker that it is demonstrative of the severity of his personality disorder, which is what underlies the risk of him committing a further serious offence.

22. [381]

    The fact that the plaintiff has not sexually assaulted anybody in the period of over three and a half years in the community under the ESO does not support revocation. As explained in Dr Parker’s unchallenged evidence, this would generally be the case for someone with his assessed risk. Further, the plaintiff has been under supervision, the point of which is to limit the prospect of such occurrence.

23. [382]

    The favourable evidence of the plaintiff’s character by Jane carries little weight. The evidence is that they are not in an intimate relationship, and that she provides so much for him by way of financial, administrative and emotional support. The plaintiff’s capacity to be charming, personable and so on as set out in the expert evidence may well have had no challenge in their circumstances. Jane has clearly absorbed a view of the plaintiff’s plight which, as will be explained below, is not supported by the evidence. Dr Parker was not ultimately cross-examined by the plaintiff, so as to explore for example whether his current view of the high risk of the plaintiff offending was ameliorated by Jane’s positive view of him.

24. [383]

    The fact that the plaintiff was regarded well by AF as her client for five months in her work in business coaching adds nothing to the plaintiff’s case for revocation.

25. [384]

    As to the evidence of Mr Awit, I am prepared to consider, without needing to decide the point, that cogent evidence that a person is being harmed by the operation of an ESO may be a reason to consider its revocation, particularly if it is making the supervised offender more dangerous. The Court would then need to consider whether the purposes of the Act would be best served by revocation or some other course.

26. [385]

    However I can give no weight to the evidence of Mr Awit of the plaintiff being harmed mentally by the ESO, because the plaintiff has not proved the pertinent aspects of the history provided to Mr Awit by admissible evidence.

27. [386]

    The plaintiff’s evidence proves no more than that he has said, over and over again, that the ESO has been used to destroy family relationships, friendships, study, work, enjoyment of life and to “victim hunt”. He has not adduced any evidence whatsoever that these things have occurred. There is simply no evidence of any familial relationship or friendship being damaged by virtue of the ESO. There is no evidence of any employer or place of learning being contacted by those administering the ESO.

28. [387]

    The only meaningful evidence of any employment being prevented was the proposed work for PD in 2019, prior to the imposition of the ESO. The proposed work was incompatible with the requirement of parole that the plaintiff submit in advance schedules of his intended movements, and permission to undertake that work was suspended for that reason. It has no connection with the ESO.

29. [388]

    Regarding the possible work for a law firm, the plaintiff’s December 2024 written submissions asserted that he was offered a job by a personal injury lawyer where he was to source new clientele who had been victims of sexual assault as this is what the personal injury lawyer specialised in. In his affidavit of 18 September 2025 the plaintiff states he was employed by a lawyer (no date or details are provided) to assist victims of sexual assault and domestic violence by preparing affidavits and statements and referring them for compensation. The plaintiff has no legal qualifications, and on the material before me no other training or experience that would equip him to take on such a task. The direction complained of was withdrawn or removed in 2024, well prior to the filing of the plaintiff’s December 2024 submissions, and his complaint is about the problem caused when the direction was in existence. The change from submitting that a lawyer offered him a job to source new clientele who had been victims of sexual assault in December 2024, to his evidence in September 2025 of having been employed by a lawyer to prepare affidavits and statements for sexual assault victims, is unsatisfactory. As is apparent from his own affidavits in these proceedings, and those of others he has relied upon, the plaintiff does not have the capacity to be employed by a legal practitioner to take draft affidavits for clients who have suffered sexual assault. In the absence of any evidence from the relevant law firm, I do not accept that this was a meaningful work opportunity that was curtailed by the direction given under the ESO. In any event this direction no longer applies.

30. [389]

    The refusal to allow the plaintiff to travel interstate was not because of condition 13 of the ESO relating to employment, but rather, by reference to condition 10 of the ESO, which provides “The defendant must not leave New South Wales without the approval of the Commissioner of CSNSW”. This is required by s 11(2) of the Act. The ability of NSW authorities to effectively supervise the plaintiff would be significantly constrained while in Queensland. The above evidence indicates that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient information to allow supervising officers to assess the risk associated with the travel and to investigate whether it would be possible for appropriate arrangements to be made for his supervision in Queensland.

31. [390]

    The evidence of EB does not support the plaintiff’s claim that Community Corrections caused the loss of his job at the power station in 2022. As is clear from the evidence set out above at [127] and [128], the plaintiff’s assertion as to what the evidence shows is simply wrong. Similarly, the documentation regarding the ASIC card and flying helicopters is completely contrary to the plaintiff’s assertions as to what the evidence shows, as outlined above at [177]-[180].

32. [391]

    Two points arise from the plaintiff’s repeated claim that he was told by the owner of a particular pizzeria that a police officer had told him to not serve him. The first is that this is, conspicuously, the single specific example the plaintiff has provided of any organisation having been encouraged by anyone to not serve him. Although it is hearsay, the plaintiff has not adduced even another hearsay account of a particular business not serving him because of contact by officers of the State. There is general reference in some of his material to a fish and chip shop, but with no detail. That the plaintiff has recognised the importance of including evidence of what he was told by the man in the particular pizzeria, and includes no detail of any other business treating him this way, highlights the utter lack of evidentiary support for his contentions that because of the actions of those administering the ESO cafes, gyms, and other businesses have not served him.

33. [392]

    Further, and related to the hearsay nature of the evidence regarding the pizzeria, this evidence simply has no bearing on whether the ESO should be revoked. There is no evidence from the owner of the pizza shop as to what the police officer actually said, nor any explanation given. The ESO does not authorise officers of NSW Police, or Corrective Services, to attend businesses and direct the proprietors to not serve the plaintiff. There is no link between this occurrence and the ESO, and certainly no rational process of reasoning that the ESO should be revoked because of this incident. The plaintiff has stated on many occasions that there are police officers who dislike him. A recent example is an OIMS note dated 6 August 2025 in exhibit 6 which records the plaintiff telling his DSO that local police have had a vendetta against him for many years due to claims he has sexually assaulted the daughter of a police officer.

34. [393]

    Another area where the plaintiff’s ability to point to only one single example, which is itself deficient in proving anything that would warrant revocation of the ESO, is in the case the plaintiff has endeavoured to make of the State “victim hunting.” The sole example regarding which there is any admissible evidence relates to 2018, well prior to the imposition of the ESO. CD was a woman who had been in an intimate relationship with the plaintiff prior to his release to parole in 2018 (presumably prior to his incarceration in 2008, but not necessarily so). She contacted the Parklea Correctional Centre to make sure he could not contact her. That same day, with the plaintiff’s application for parole pending, a police officer was sent to ask whether she had any concerns for her safety if he was released on parole. She stated that she did not want to answer that question, and no one knew where she lived. The evidence of CD and Sergeant AC indicates nothing other than that fairly routine question being asked of a woman in such a position, and a faithful reporting in the police officer’s statement of what she said. Neither the statement of CD nor that of Sergeant AC supports the plaintiff’s contentions regarding their interaction. Their interaction has nothing to do with the ESO.

35. [394]

    As the plaintiff has failed to prove the relevant history provided to Mr Awit, I do not accept Mr Awit’s evidence of the harm being caused to the plaintiff by the ESO. I further reject the aspect of the plaintiff’s case that is based on this alleged operation of the ESO, independently of Mr Awit’s opinion.

36. [395]

    The decision of the CCA in Mr Monteiro’s severity appeal does not support the suggestion of any overzealousness in charging the plaintiff with breaches. The Court found that the breach offences went to the heart of the supervision process, and amounted to a significant impediment to it being fully implemented, requiring sentences of imprisonment.

37. [396]

    The decision of Hamill J in Carr is of no assistance to the plaintiff. His Honour made orders revoking an ESO pursuant to s 13 of the Act on the application of the State, which contended that the evidence demonstrated Mr Carr no longer presented an unacceptable risk to the community. The application was not opposed by Mr Carr. The risk assessment and risk management reports and ESO completion reports before his Honour supported the proposition that Mr Carr did not present a high risk of sexual offending. This is contrary to the unchallenged and uncontradicted evidence of Dr Parker in these proceedings.

38. [397]

    Additionally, Mr Carr, who had a mild intellectual disability, had spent the vast majority of his adult life in prison, mostly because of failure to comply with the conditions of the ESO in “technical” ways (drug use or failing to comply with curfew or reporting conditions). Of the 16 years that had passed since the expiry of his non-parole period, for a crime committed as a juvenile, he had spent 10 to 11 years in custody, mostly for such breaches of the ESO. His Honour also noted that some of the reports suggested that the impact of the order and the way it was being enforced may be counterproductive to Mr Carr’s rehabilitation, and expressed agreement with this proposition.

39. [398]

    His Honour was thus satisfied for the purposes of s 13(1B) of the Act that for two reasons the circumstances had changed sufficiently to render the order unnecessary. The first was the expert opinion no longer suggesting a high risk of re-offending. The second was the clear impact of the order, resulting in Mr Carr’s repeated incarceration for relatively minor infractions and consequent institutionalisation, which was adversely impacting on his prospects of rehabilitation. Consequently neither the primary nor secondary objective the legislation was being served by the order remaining in place.

40. [399]

    The plaintiff has accordingly not established any reason for the revocation of the ESO, and the aspects of the final amended summons seeking revocation must be dismissed.

41. [400]

    The plaintiff made no submissions in connection with order F sought in the final amended summons, quoted above at [22], regarding non-publication of his name. This claim for relief will accordingly also be dismissed.

42. [401]

    As to the defendant’s Notice of Motion, I am satisfied on the basis of the unchallenged evidence of EM and Dr Parker, and my own review of the OIMS notes relating to the period of time since 20 December 2024, that the deletion of conditions 4 and 8 has significantly compromised the capacity to supervise the plaintiff, relevant to his risk factors. This development has been contrary to the statutory purpose of the Act of ensuring the safety and protection of the community. These conditions must be reimposed.

43. [402]

    The evidence does not establish as clearly that there has been difficulty caused by the other orders made by Garling J, and I do not propose to make any orders in relation to them.

44. [403]

    I note finally that the evidence adduced by the defendant includes material in which the plaintiff has made scandalous allegations. This material needs to be redacted in the version maintained in the Court file, with an unredacted version placed in a sealed envelope, in the same way in which the plaintiff’s evidence is to be treated.

ORDERS

1. [404]

   Accordingly I make the following orders:

   1. (1)

      The plaintiff’s final amended summons filed on 1 July 2024 is, to the extent that it is before the Court (namely claims for relief A, B, D, F and H) dismissed;

   2. (2)

      The defendant’s Notice of Motion is upheld to the extent that conditions 4 and 8 imposed by Fagan J are reimposed, and is otherwise dismissed;

   3. (3)

      The defendant is to forward to my Associate within 28 days pages with redactions to be included in the Court file in accordance with these reasons, with a schedule of where they are located. The unredacted pages will be placed in a sealed envelope which is not to be opened other than by order of a Judge of this Court.