The Court was satisfied at the preliminary hearing stage that the supporting documentation, taken at its highest, established that the defendant — a 19-year-old neo-Nazi adherent convicted of knife possession offences whose parole had been revoked — is a 'convicted NSW terrorism activity offender' and poses an unacceptable risk of committing a serious terrorism offence if not kept under supervision, justifying an Interim Supervision Order and appointment of psychiatric and psychological examiners. The Court expressed doubt, without finally resolving the issue, as to whether private writings reflecting violent extremist views that were never communicated to any other person can constitute a 'statement advocating support for violent extremism' under s 10(1)(c)(i) of the THRO Act. The Court confirmed that the discretionary power to make an ISO under s 27 should be exercised with regard to the objects of the legislation and weight given to risk avoidance, and that the preliminary hearing standard is lower than the final hearing standard, requiring only that the documentation, if proved, would justify the making of an ESO.
The full text is available to signed-in members.