NSW v Mohommed Farhat

[2026] NSWSC 19

Supreme Court of NSW

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Civil Law
2. › High risk offenders
3. › Terrorism (High Risk Offenders) Act 2017 (NSW)
4. › Preliminary hearing
5. › Test to be applied
6. › Whether material if proved would justify making of extended supervision order
7. › Assessment of risk
8. › Relevance of sentencing court's findings
9. › ss 20, 24(5), 25
1. Civil Law
2. › High risk offenders
3. › Terrorism (High Risk Offenders) Act 2017 (NSW)
4. › Interim supervision order
5. › Statutory prerequisite
6. › Whether offender's current custody 'will expire' before proceedings determined
7. › Meaning of 'will' in statutory context
8. › Whether 'will' means 'may possibly'
9. › Construction rejected
10. › Whether words 'appears to the Court' changes natural meaning of 'will expire'
11. › s 27(a)
1. Statutes
2. › Construction
3. › Meaning of 'will' in statutory context
4. › Whether 'will' connotes realistic inevitability or mere possibility
5. › Terrorism (High Risk Offenders) Act 2017 (NSW), s 27(a)
6. › Bail Act 2013 (NSW), s 22B

Quick Take

The word 'will' in s 27(a) of the Terrorism (High Risk Offenders) Act 2017 (NSW) requires realistic inevitability that custody will expire before proceedings are determined; a pending severity appeal creating a mere possibility of earlier release does not satisfy this prerequisite for an interim supervision order.