Australia, July 30 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on June 30:

1. By summons filed on 1 May 2025, the State of New South Wales ("the plaintiff") seeks an order under s 7(4) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) ("the Act"), appointing two qualified psychiatrists or registered psychologists to examine Mr Robert Strong ("the defendant") and report to the Court (with consequential orders).

2. The plaintiff also seeks an interim supervision order ("ISO") pursuant to s 10A of the Act for 28 days from 6 July 2025, when Mr Strong's current extended supervision order ("ESO") expires. The final relief sought by the plaintiff is an ESO for a further period of three years.

3. The orders previously made under the Act in relation to Mr Strong include:

a) On 29 July 2016, Harrison J (as his Honour then was) made a continuing detention order ("CDO") for a period of two years.

b) On 3 October 2018, R A Hulme J made an ESO for a period of five years.

Summary of the plaintiff's position

4. There are three foundations for Mr Strong's recent progress towards stability and pro-social community engagement.

5. First, there is the extremely high level of support that he receives from disability support workers, under an intense package of the National Disability Insurance Scheme ("NDIS") funding. Mr Strong's acceptance of these supports is presently entirely voluntary. Furthermore, should the NDIS funding cease for any period, it may lapse in its entirety because Mr Strong is now eligible for aged care funding given his age.

6. Second, there are the "repeated, rolling" Community Treatment Orders ("CTOs") that have now been in place for many years (although there is no guarantee that they will continue, and no recent assessment of the impact of Mr Strong's neuro-cognitive decline). The CTOs have contributed to the relative stabilisation of Mr Strong's long-term psychotic illness and ensured that he continues to take anti-libidinal medication in accordance with the ESO. Mr Strong has indicated that he wishes to discontinue this treatment, once the ESO lapses.

7. Third, there is the ESO itself. The conditions of electronic monitoring and those restricting Mr Strong's relapse into substance abuse are highly significant. Mr Strong has a decades-long history of relapsing into substance abuse, with related homelessness, disengagement from support services, and eventual relapse into sexual offending. Any fear that electronic monitoring would hinder Mr Strong's pro-social community engagement is not borne out by the evidence.

8. These three foundations, together, support Mr Strong's recent progress. His many complex risk factors in relation to his elevated risk of further sexual offending remain, although these foundations mostly contain them. The current ESO "has been pivotal in ensuring that these peripheral support structures do not fall away". Should this foundation be removed, the structures would collapse.

9. The Court would be satisfied to a high degree of probability that Mr Strong poses an unacceptable risk of committing another serious sex offence if not supervised under an ESO, even if the conditions of such an order are confined.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/197ba8b6424a006c632f28b2)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.