State of New South Wales v Fayad (Preliminary)

The case involves the State of New South Wales and the defendant, Fayad. The dispute concerns whether an interim supervision order (ISO) should be made in relation to Fayad, who is considered a high-risk terrorism offender. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary issue before the court was whether an ISO should be made for the defendant, considering his history of associations with individuals involved in terrorism activities and his advocacy for violent extremism. Additionally, the court had to determine whether a psychiatrist and psychologist should be appointed to examine the defendant.

The court considered the defendant's past involvement in terrorism activities and his associations with individuals who have engaged in such acts. It also noted that the defendant was currently serving a seven-year sentence for non-terrorist offences and had disengaged from the PRISM program. Despite the defendant's parole being refused, the court found that there was a relevant risk of the defendant committing a serious terrorism offence. The court acknowledged that the defendant's disengagement from the PRISM program and the refusal of parole indicated a reduced likelihood of reoffending, but this did not eliminate the risk he posed. Therefore, the court granted the interim supervision order subject to specific conditions, and ordered that a psychiatric and psychological examination be conducted by court-appointed experts.

The final orders of the court included the granting of an interim supervision order for the defendant, subject to conditions that were specified in the judgment. Additionally, the court ordered that a psychiatrist and psychologist be appointed to examine the defendant. This examination was intended to provide further insight into the defendant's mental health and risk profile, to assist in the ongoing management and supervision of his potential threat to public safety.