Australia, April 27 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on March 27:

1. David Hona ('the defendant') is 31 years of age. He has had extensive interactions with the criminal justice system. He "first got into trouble with the law" when aged 14. His offending has involved violence, on occasions with weapons, on his own but sometimes with others, within domestic settings and against police and strangers on public streets.

2. By summons filed 28 October 2024, the State of New South Wales ('the plaintiff' or 'the State') alleges that the defendant poses an unacceptable risk of committing another serious offence such that final orders should be made against him under the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) ('the Act').

3. The defendant, who has previously been subject to an extended supervision order ('ESO') made under the Act, opposes the making of such an order: he contests that he poses an unacceptable risk of committing another serious offence. The defendant also argues, if the Court does make an extended supervision order, that only some, but not all, of the conditions sought by the State should be imposed.

4. The plaintiff read, in support of the orders, the following affidavits:

1) Affidavits of Catherine Moore sworn 28 October and 19 November 2024 and 3 and 17 March 2025.

2) Affidavit of Jessie Slattery-McDonald affirmed 6 December 2024.

5. The plaintiff also tendered the Court Attendance Notice and police facts sheet - which relates to the defendant returning a positive drug test performed on 8 March 2025 (exhibit B). As a result of that failed test, the defendant was charged on 14 March 2025 with failing to comply with conditions 18 and 21 of the Interim Supervision Order ('the ISO') made by R A Hulme AJ on 16 December 2024 which commenced on 4 February 2025.

6. The defendant read, in opposition to the orders, the following affidavits:

1) Affidavit of Joseph Harding affirmed 11 March 2025.

2) Affidavit of the defendant affirmed 11 March 2025 (with the exception of par 17, which was not read).

3) Affidavit of Zenah Moussaoui affirmed 2 December 2024.

7. The defendant also tendered an email which recorded the details of the defendant's acceptance into a rehabilitation program (exhibit 1).

8. There was no cross-examination of any deponent.

9. The parties prepared a joint statement of agreed facts dated 14 March 2025 ('the agreed facts') in accordance with Practice Note SC CL 12.

10. All references to legislative provisions in these reasons are, unless otherwise specified, references to the Act.

The issues

The issues agreed

11. The parties agreed (and I find) that all preconditions to the making of the ESO, other than whether there is an unacceptable risk within s 5B(d), have been satisfied (agreed facts at [14]).

12. The parties also agreed (and I also find) that the requirements with respect to the application, as set out in ss 6(1), (3) and (4) of the Act, have been complied with, as had the pre-trial procedures relating to the making of, and dealing with, the application for an ESO, as set out in s 7 of the Act (agreed facts at [15]).

The issue in dispute: s 5B(d)

13. Thus, the remaining issue is, as I have identified - namely, whether the terms of s 5B(d) of the Act are satisfied. That section requires the Court to be "satisfied to a high degree of probability that the offender poses an unacceptable risk of committing another serious offence if not kept under supervision under the order". In determining whether (or not) to make an ESO, the "safety of the community must be the paramount consideration" (s 9(2)) and the Court must also have regard, in addition to any other matter it considers relevant, to the matters set out in s 9(3), but is not to consider any intention of the offender to leave New South Wales (s 9(4)).

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/195d4520d0868bfdaf268de7)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.