Attorney General of NSW v Rohan (a pseudonym) (Preliminary Hearing)

The case involved the Attorney General of New South Wales suing a defendant identified under a pseudonym, who was a forensic patient under a limiting term with an earlier extension order. The defendant had an intellectual disability and was diagnosed with paedophilia. The matter before the court was whether a further extension order should be made and whether preliminary orders for the appointment of experts to assess the defendant and report to the Court should be granted. The court also considered whether the making of an extension was justified on the assumption that the matters alleged in the supporting documentation were proved. The defendant conceded to the preliminary orders.

The court needed to determine the appropriate legal principles to apply in making a decision regarding the extension order. It considered the nature of the forensic patient's disability, the risk posed by the defendant, and the necessity of the extension order to ensure public safety. The court also needed to weigh the defendant's right to liberty against the risk posed to the public. The court had to consider whether the evidence provided was sufficient to justify the extension order on the assumption that the allegations were proved.

The court found that the defendant's intellectual disability and paedophilic tendencies made him a significant risk to the community. The court considered that the evidence provided was sufficient to justify the making of the extension order on the assumption that the allegations were proved. The court granted the preliminary orders for the appointment of experts to assess the defendant and report to the Court. The court also made an interim extension order. The court held that the defendant's right to liberty was not absolute and could be overridden by the need to protect the public from harm. The court found that the extension order was necessary to ensure public safety.