Background
The State sought a three-year extended supervision order (ESO) under the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) for Trevor Thomas, who was serving parole following sentences for serious sexual and violent offending. Thomas accepted that the evidence justified an ESO, but disputed its duration and a number of proposed conditions.
Thomas had a lengthy history of violent and sexual offending, substance abuse, and prolonged imprisonment. Court-appointed experts assessed him as posing an elevated risk of further serious violence and sexual offending, while also finding significant and progressing neurocognitive impairment or dementia. They considered that stable supported accommodation and services could reduce his risk, but those supports had not yet been secured.
The Court’s Holding
Campbell J held, to a high degree of probability, that Thomas presented an unacceptable risk of committing another serious sexual or violent offence if not subject to an ESO. The statutory preconditions were met, and the mandatory considerations supported making the order.
The Court imposed an ESO for two years from expiry of the current interim supervision order, rather than the State’s requested three years. The Court considered that Thomas’s age, cognitive decline and potential access to appropriate support might reduce his risk, but found that a two-year order was presently necessary. It imposed the scheduled conditions, including electronic monitoring, movement scheduling, a night curfew, supervision visits, restrictions concerning drugs, weapons and licensed premises, and treatment-related requirements.
Key Takeaways
- An ESO may be imposed despite an offender’s consent only after the Court independently finds the statutory criteria satisfied.
- Progressive dementia may reduce future risk but can also create compliance and support needs relevant to supervision conditions.
- The Court preferred a two-year order because supported accommodation and services were uncertain, with variation or revocation available if risk later reduces.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the Court’s balancing of community protection against an offender’s deteriorating cognitive condition. It confirms that neurocognitive impairment does not itself eliminate unacceptable risk, particularly where serious historical offending, institutionalisation, substance-use relapse risk and unstable accommodation remain.
It also emphasises that ESO conditions should be practically tailored to an offender’s limitations, including through plain-English drafting and sensitive administration, while retaining measures needed for effective risk management.