Davie v NSW

[2016] NSWCA 96

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › High risk offenders
3. › Continuing detention orders
4. › Whether adequate supervision provided by extended supervision order
5. › Whether primary judge erred in failing to have regard to relevant matters
6. › Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), ss 5B, 5D, 17
1. Criminal Law
2. › High risk offenders
3. › Continuing detention orders
4. › Discretion not to make continuing detention order
5. › Whether primary judge failed to consider residual discretion
6. › Whether rehabilitation and consequences of detention beyond sentence considered
7. › Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), ss 3, 5D, 17

Quick Take

A primary judge considering a continuing detention order under s 5D(1) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) is not bound to place an offender on an extended supervision order merely to give the offender an opportunity to provide informed consent to anti-libidinal medication; the outcome in Atkins reflected the particular circumstances of that case. Where the basis for conditions of a proposed extended supervision order relating to medical treatment is not in play on the evidence, the primary judge does not err by not separately considering those conditions. Consideration of rehabilitation may be implicit in the court's consideration of the treatment needed to control offending behaviour.