PLAINTIFF SEEKS FOR THE RENEWAL OF THE DEFENDANT’S INTERIM SUPERVISION ORDER AFTER BEING RELEASED ON PAROLE FOR ANOTHER OFFENSE
State of New South Wales v Davis (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 625 (2 June 2021)
This is an application by the plaintiff to renew the Inetrim Supervision Order imposed upon the defendant as ordered by the court before the defendant was released on parole for another offense.
Facts:
On 25 May 2020, the State of New South Wales filed a summons seeking that an extended supervision order (ESO) be made in respect of the defendant pursuant to the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) (the CHRO Act).
On 9 June 2020, Hoeben CJ at CL ordered that the defendant be subject to an ISO for a period of 28 days.
The defendant was serving a sentence for contravening a child protection prohibition order and possessing child abuse material at the time the summons was filed. That sentence expired on 19 June 2020.
In the meantime, the defendant had been charged with a further contravention of the child protection prohibition order that had been put in place on 31 October 2019. As a result of that offense, the defendant was sentenced on 22 June 2020 to a term of imprisonment of 18 months with a nonparole period expiring on 13 April 2021. The effect of that custodial sentence was to suspend the ISO made by Hoeben CJ at CL.
On 13 April 2021, the defendant was released on parole. The effect of that release was that the ISO commenced to run. It was, for a period of 28 days and, accordingly, expired on the 11th of May 2021.
Corrective Services New South Wales did not inform the Crown Solicitor that the defendant had been released on parole on the expiry of his non-parole period until 26 May 2021. By that stage, the ISO had expired. Accordingly, the State filed a notice of motion which sought an order that the ISO made by Hoeben CJ at CL be renewed for a further period of 28 days, to be reinstated immediately.
The defendant opposes the making of a further ISO. The principal basis for the opposition is that there is not sufficient evidence concerning the defendant's present situation to justify the making of such an order.
Issue: Should the ISO be renewed for 28 days?
Law:
Analysis:
The defendant is under a number of parole conditions and under some supervision under the CTO. The significant differences between what is contained in the ISO conditions imposed by Hoeben CJ at CL and the parole conditions are that in the parole conditions, there are no schedules of activities to be provided by the defendant, there is no provision for search and seizure to enforce the conditions of the ISO, and there are no conditions concerning the defendant's use of the internet and electronic devices.
The court does not consider that the parole conditions and CTO arrangement are sufficient to mitigate the risk that the defendant poses, even for the relatively short period of time that might be involved before an ESO is made, if that eventuates after a final hearing. The position may of course be longer than the three week period when allowance is made for a judgment to be prepared after the hearing in circumstances where a further 28 day period is available under the CHRO Act.
Conclusion: The court orders the renewal of the interim supervision order for a further period of 28 days.
