Baldwin v NSW

(2020) 102 NSWLR 447; [2020] NSWCA 112

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Extended supervision orders
3. › Conditions of order
4. › Search and seizure conditions
5. › Validity
6. › Whether privilege against self-incrimination abrogated
7. › Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), s 11
1. Statutory Interpretation
2. › Statutory powers
3. › Privilege against self-incrimination
4. › Abrogation of privilege
5. › Clear statement principle
6. › Whether statute manifests sufficiently clear intention to abrogate privilege
7. › Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), s 11
1. Statutory Interpretation
2. › Statutory powers
3. › Extended supervision order conditions
4. › Whether conditions directing offender to consent to searches engage privilege against self-incrimination
5. › Distinction between requirement to consent to search and requirement to produce documents or answer questions
1. Statutory Interpretation
2. › Statutory powers
3. › Extended supervision order conditions
4. › Whether conditions impermissibly direct or regulate conduct of third parties
5. › Whether conditions authorise seizure of third party property
6. › Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), s 11

Quick Take

Practitioners acting for offenders subject to extended supervision orders should note that search and seizure conditions requiring consent do not engage the privilege against self-incrimination, and that even if they did, s 11(1) of the Act authorises such abrogation.