Australia, Jan. 11 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on Dec. 16:

1. The offender is to be sentenced with respect to one offence of fail to comply with extended supervision order contrary to s 12 of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (the Act) following a judge alone trial commencing 30 September 2024. A verdict of guilty was entered following judgment on 16 October 2024, whilst verdicts of not guilty were entered with respect to two remaining counts similarly alleging breach of s 12 of the Act (R v SLD (No 3) [2024] NSWDC 480 (the verdict judgment).

2. The maximum penalty for the offence, being five years imprisonment, acts as a sentencing guidepost or reference point.

3. Admitted on behalf the Crown were following:-

1) Indictment

2) Criminal history

3) Custodial record

4) Facts on sentence for H93643906 and H80434767, 20/09/2023

5) Remarks on sentence for H93643906 and H80434767, 20/09/2023

6) Report of Mr Sheehan, Forensic Psychologist dated 19 August 2023

7) Transcript of call audio file dated 11 March 2024

8) Transcript of call audio file dated 12 March 2024

9) Pages 64 - 65 of Corrective Services case notes

10) Sentencing Assessment Report

4. Admitted on behalf of the offender were the following:-

1) NDIS plan dated 10 November 2023

2) OIMS notes - 17/10/2024, 7/11/2024 and 11/11/2024

3) Summons dated 4 November 2024

The circumstances of the offending and assessment of objective seriousness

5. The circumstances in which the offending occurred is encapsulated in the verdict judgment.

6. The offender had been the subject of an extended supervision order in accordance with the orders of Campbell J: State of New South Wales v SLD (Final) [2023] NSWSC 978. The orders included a non-association condition with respect to children. In making the order, Campbell J found that the offender posed "an unacceptable risk of committing a serious violence offence" and posed "a high risk of committing a serious sexual offence" if not under such an order: [39]. His Honour further determined that the offender's personality disorder and high degree of institutionalisation was such that the risk "could materialise spontaneously if he felt his demands were frustrated or thwarted". Further, the risk could materialise "with a degree of premeditation". This was in circumstances where the offender's personality disorder rendered him "self-centred and unempathetic" and that the offender was liable to offend where his will was denied: [41].

7. The offence was committed during a visit to Bulli beach when the offender interacted with the child's mother whilst in the presence of the child. Although there was no direct interaction with the child, the topic of conversation was the child. The interaction was relatively brief lasting no more than several minutes.

8. I am not satisfied, as contended by the Crown, that the offending was such as to elevate, in any material way, the risk of the offender committing a serious violent or sexual offence, including the possible commission of an offence of the same kind for which the extended supervision order was imposed: Monteiro v R [2022] NSWCCA 37 at [36]. The offence occurred during the day in a public area attended by numerous people. The interaction was brief, and following an inquiry of the mother to the whereabouts of the child's father, the offender promptly removed himself from their presence.

9. However, it must be acknowledged that the purpose of imposing an absolute prohibition on the association with children is an acceptance that the commission of a serious offence against a child might be initiated through an association with the child.

10. In all circumstances, I find that the offence falls towards the lower end of the range of objective seriousness.

*Rest of the document and Footnotes can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/193ccde0c20df3f736041fd2)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.