Where the Crimes (Serious Sex Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) authorises supervision orders directing offenders to participate in treatment programs under s 11(d), the Court cannot irrebuttably assume the State will fund such programs; the assumption operates as a rebuttable presumption of fact. If evidence establishes that funding will not be provided, the Court must take that into account in determining whether adequate supervision can be provided. The Court retains a discretion under s 17 to decline to make a continuing detention order even where conditions precedent are satisfied, which could be exercised if the Executive's failure to fund appropriate supervision is sufficiently unreasonable.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 38 later cases that cite this judgment.
5 of the 38 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.