The phrase 'adequate supervision' in s 5G of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) is not anchored to the concept of 'unacceptable risk' in s 5E; it involves an independent evaluative judgment to be undertaken according to the circumstances of the individual case. The privilege against exposure to a penalty applies in proceedings under the Act, so no adverse inference can be drawn from an offender's failure to give evidence. Appellate review of a primary judge's evaluative judgment under s 5G requires demonstration of error of law or fact, with considerable deference to the primary judge's assessment of competing evidence.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 84 later cases that cite this judgment.
10 of the 84 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.