Australia, June 30 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on May 29:

1. Joseph Rosenberg ('the defendant'), also known as Joseph Vozila, is a convicted sex and violent offender. The circumstances surrounding his sexual offending are extremely serious. His offences against a five-year-old girl and a young woman - both of whom were vulnerable and defenceless - were particularly predatory and disturbing.

2. The State of New South Wales ('the plaintiff' or 'the State') alleges that the defendant continues to pose an unacceptable risk of committing another serious offence, such that final orders should be made against him pursuant to the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) ('the Act'). All references to legislative provisions in these reasons are, unless otherwise specified, references to the Act.

3. The plaintiff moved on an amended summons dated 7 May 2025 ('the amended summons') that was filed without objection in Court on 22 May 2025. By the amended summons, the plaintiff seeks an extended supervision order ('ESO') for a period of five years. The defendant, who has not previously been subject to an ESO under the Act, accepts that the statutory preconditions to the making of final orders have been satisfied - in fact, he does not wish to be heard against making an ESO. The defendant nevertheless opposes the making of an ESO for five years. During submissions, however, the defendant clarified his position: he does not oppose the making of an ESO if it is confined to a period of two years.

4. Further, the defendant does not oppose the conditions sought by the plaintiff. However, in relation to condition 10 - a condition which essentially imposes a curfew on the defendant, and which is presently subject to limited exception - the defendant seeks a further exception that, if allowed, would permit him to ride his motorcycle between the hours of 9pm and 6am along a 26km route through the suburbs of Sydney.

5. On 12 March 2025, McNaughton J made an interim supervision order ('the ISO') and a range of ancillary orders that affected the defendant (State of New South Wales v Rosenburg (Preliminary) [2025] NSWSC 191; 'the preliminary hearing judgment'). These included an order that two qualified psychiatrists or two registered psychologists separately examine the defendant, and then furnish reports to the Court on the results of such examinations.

6. Dr Gordon Elliott, forensic psychiatrist, and Ms Laura Durkin, clinical and forensic psychologist, were duly appointed to assess the defendant. Each has prepared a report. Dr Elliott's report is dated 16 April 2025 ('GE report') and Ms Durkin's report is dated 30 April 2025 ('LD report'). Dr Elliott gave evidence, but Ms Durkin did not.

7. The ISO has been extended on a number of occasions and will expire on 6 June 2025. It is agreed that, by operation of s 10C(2), the last date on which the defendant may be subject to the ISO is 14 June 2025.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/197154780e48f9b8ade331b0)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.