The Court dismissed the State's application for an interim supervision order at the preliminary hearing stage, holding that even taking the supporting documentation at its highest, the risk assessment evidence did not establish that the defendant posed an unacceptable risk of committing a 'serious violence offence' as defined in s 5A of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW). The Court found that the extended statutory definition of 'serious violence offence' encompassing manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act (where recklessness as to death is not the mental element) made prediction of future serious violence offending particularly difficult, and that the RAR's high point was only that offending falling short of a serious violence offence 'might escalate' in certain circumstances. The Court also held that withdrawn charges of assault could only be considered to the extent that police attended the premises, not as evidence that assaults occurred, and gave significant weight to protective factors including the defendant's demonstrated capacity for community reintegration during his first year on parole.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 3 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.