State of New South Wales v Barez (Final)

The defendants, Barez, were before the Supreme Court of New South Wales in a civil proceeding. The state sought an extended supervision order under the Terrorism (High Risk Offenders) Act 2017, aiming to address the potential risk posed by the defendants if not monitored closely. The primary dispute revolved around whether the defendants indeed posed an unacceptable risk of committing serious terrorism offences, thereby justifying the extended supervision order. The defendants contested this, arguing that such an order was not warranted given their current circumstances.

The court had to determine whether the defendants met the criteria under the Act, specifically if they posed an unacceptable risk of committing a serious terrorism offence. The court also needed to assess the discretionary considerations relevant to imposing such an order and, if appropriate, to decide on the conditions under which such an order should be made. This involved a detailed examination of the defendants' past behaviour, their current activities, and their potential future actions in relation to terrorism.

In its judgment, the court found that the defendants did indeed pose an unacceptable risk of committing serious terrorism offences. The court noted the defendants' history of involvement in terrorist activities and their potential to re-engage in such activities. It concluded that the mandatory considerations outlined in the Act were satisfied, necessitating the imposition of an extended supervision order. The court also considered the discretionary factors and determined that specific conditions would be necessary to mitigate the risk. The court made an order for an extended supervision order to be imposed on the defendants, subject to certain conditions designed to manage the risk they posed.

The final orders included the imposition of an extended supervision order on the defendants, with conditions such as regular reporting to a supervising officer, restrictions on travel, and limitations on the defendants' ability to communicate with certain individuals. These conditions were tailored to address the specific risks identified by the court. The order also included provisions for periodic reviews to assess the ongoing necessity of the supervision and its effectiveness in mitigating the risk.