The Court held that an extended supervision order under s 20 of the Terrorism (High Risk Offenders) Act 2017 (NSW) cannot be made where the defendant has ceased to be an 'eligible offender' under s 7 — that is, where the defendant is no longer serving a sentence of imprisonment for a NSW indictable offence — even if the defendant was an eligible offender when the application was filed. The parenthesised words in s 20(a) ('or was in custody or under supervision at the time the original application for the order was filed') were construed as addressing only the situation where an offender moves from full-time detention to parole between application and determination, not where the offender ceases to serve any sentence of imprisonment entirely. The Court distinguished Kaiser, which concerned the differently structured definition of 'supervised offender' under the CHRO Act, and held that the THRO Act's standalone definition of 'eligible offender' in s 7 imposes an eligibility requirement at both the time of application and the time of determination.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.