State of New South Wales v Ibrahim (Preliminary)
[2021] NSWSC 91
•08 February 2021
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: State of New South Wales v Ibrahim (Preliminary) [2021] NSWSC 91 Hearing dates: 8 February 2021 Decision date: 08 February 2021 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: R A Hulme J Decision: Two experts appointed to provide reports and interim supervision order for 28 days made
Catchwords: HIGH RISK OFFENDERS – convicted NSW terrorism activity offender – unacceptable risk of committing a serious terrorism offence – interim supervision order made – no point of principle
Legislation Cited: Terrorism (High Risk Offenders) Act 2017 (NSW), ss 10, 20, 29
Category: Principal judgment Parties: State of New South Wales (Plaintiff)
Monzor Ibrahim (Defendant)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Ms K Stern SC with Mr J Harris (Plaintiff)
Mr M Khan (Defendant)
Crown Solicitors
Executive Legal
File Number(s): 2020/347972
Judgment
-
HIS HONOUR: By summons filed on 8 December 2020, the State of New South Wales seeks an extended supervision order (ESO) with respect to Mr Monzor Ibrahim pursuant to the Terrorism (High Risk Offenders) Act 2017 (NSW) (the Act).
-
At this preliminary hearing, the State seeks orders as follows:
1) An order appointing a qualified psychiatrist and a registered psychologist to conduct examinations and to provide reports, and directing the defendant to attend those examinations.
2) An order that the defendant be subject to an interim supervision order commencing 21 February 2021.
3) An order that the interim supervision order be for a period of 28 days.
4) An order directing the defendant to comply with the conditions set out in the Schedule to the summons for the duration of the order.
5) An order restricting access to the Court's file.
-
The defendant does not oppose the making of the interim orders sought by the plaintiff except as to the terms of some of the conditions.
-
I am satisfied that the statutory pre-conditions for the making of the application have been complied with. I am also satisfied that if the matters alleged in the supporting documentation relied upon by the plaintiff were proved, there would be justification for the making of an extended supervision order pursuant to s 20 of the Act. That is:
Mr Ibrahim is in custody while serving a sentence of imprisonment for a New South Wales indictable offence.
An application was made in accordance with Part 2 of the Act.
Mr Ibrahim is a convicted New South Wales terrorism activity offender (as defined in s 10 of the Act).
To a high degree of probability, he poses an unacceptable risk of committing a serious terrorism offence if not kept under supervision under an ESO.
-
Mr Ibrahim has a significant criminal history including for violence and robbery. His offending has been linked to periods of substance abuse and poor mental health.
-
He has been diagnosed by Dr Kerry Eagle with schizophrenia, severe substance use disorder and antisocial personality disorder. These diagnoses are consistent with assessments made by psychiatrists over the years. He has been frequently admitted to hospital and has been the subject of community treatment orders. He is currently subject to a forensic community treatment order (which will convert to a community treatment order upon his release from custody) that runs until 22 October 2021.
-
Mr Ibrahim has a life-long substance abuse problem. His drug use (buprenorphine and methamphetamine) has continued while in custody.
Convicted NSW terrorism activity offender
-
Mr Ibrahim is presently serving the parole period of a sentence for an indictable offence against New South Wales law.
-
He has made statements advocating support for terrorist acts or violent extremism. Dr Rodger Shanahan reviewed letters and other statements written by Mr Ibrahim. It is his opinion that he has used language which mirrors that used by some Islamist terrorist organisations. Further, it was his view that the statements fell within the terms of s 10(1A)(iii) as “threat[s] of violence of a kind that is promoted by a… group of persons or organisation, or an ideology, that supports terrorist acts or violent extremism”.
-
Dr Shanahan is also of the opinion that Mr Ibrahim has made statements advocating violence using Islamic terminology identifying persons as being "enemies of Islam" and putting forward a religious basis to justify threats of violence. It is considered that in doing so, he has made statements advocating support for a terrorist act or violent extremism: s 10(1)(c)(i) of the Act.
-
These matters support the requirement that Mr Ibrahim is a "convicted NSW terrorism activity offender" as defined in s 10 of the Act.
Unacceptable risk of committing a serious terrorism offence if not kept under supervision
-
Dr Kerri Eagle has provided a Risk Assessment Report dated 16 November 2020. Her conclusions were along the following lines:
Mr Ibrahim has severe treatment-resistant mental illness that has been complicated by his illicit substance use, antisocial behaviours and poor compliance with treatment. Access to adequate mental health care has been further impeded by Mr Ibrahim's lack of insight into his need for treatment and his ability to mask his symptoms.
He has engaged in violent and offending behaviours. These have included instrumental and reactive aggression and they are generally motivated by antisocial cognitions, emotion, (i.e. anger) and/or criminal opportunism.
Mr Ibrahim has made threats of violence incorporating ideological references and used threats that have been associated with terrorism in the media (i.e. beheading), however, it appears unlikely he would be sufficiently organised to join a group of violent extremists. His threats, letter writing and cell wall markings appear consistent with the disorganised thought processes often observed in those with schizophrenia and contain numerous references to psychotic symptoms.
His threats of violence appear, to some extent, to be inspired or justified by religious beliefs and fuelled by his delusional pre-occupation. Dr Shanahan's opinion that the language Mr Ibrahim has used is consistent with that used by Islamic extremist organisations suggests that he has had some exposure to such language and may be susceptible to influence, particularly during relapses of his illness.
Mr Ibrahim's ideological beliefs appear to intensify during acute relapse of his mental illness and incorporate bizarre persecutory delusions directed at various parties including the Australian Government. The persecutory delusions fuel his sense of grievance. In this context, he has justified the use of violence on religious grounds, expressed a willingness to die for his religion and made specific threats of violence towards others during relapses of his mental illness.
Mr Ibrahim has carried weapons (i.e. knives) to protect himself, likely due to the presence of persecutory delusions. These ideological beliefs and problematic behaviours appear to significantly lessen in the context of a contained environment, abstinence from substances and adequate treatment.
-
Dr Eagle considered that Mr Ibrahim was unlikely to be at increased risk of engaging in a violent act that is justified because of an extreme religious or ideological belief now. However, if he were to relapse in relation to this mental illness, his risk of engaging in such violence would be significantly increased. She considered that this risk of relapse was likely to be high in the community because of his limited insight, history of non-compliance, substance use disorder and previous lack of engagement with mental health services.
-
Dr Eagle's overall view was that because of Mr Ibrahim's risk of relapse of his mental illness, he would be at a moderate risk of engaging in an act of violent extremism in the community without adequate monitoring and support. Further, he is at risk of engaging in violent acts that are motivated by a psychotic grievance and inspired or influenced by his religious or ideological beliefs. She considered that he is at risk of engaging in physical violence or threats justified with reference to religious beliefs and directed at either those proximate to him, or attempting to manage his behaviour, including his family, police, law enforcement, mental health clinicians and drug health clinicians. She considered that this may involve the use of a weapon, and notes that he has also previously made threats to behead others to achieve an end.
Risk Management
-
A Risk Management Report dated 1 December 2020 was prepared by Ms Kimberley Rambaud, a community corrections officer. She had regard, among other things, to the Risk Assessment Report of Dr Eagle. There appears to be reasonable consistency between Ms Rambaud's proposal and the treatment plan proposed by Dr Eagle. The proposed conditions of an order have been significantly informed by the reports of both Dr Eagle and Ms Rambaud.
Interim Orders
-
Taking the plaintiff's case at its highest, particularly given the lack of any dispute with it for the purposes of the application for interim orders, I am satisfied of all the requirements for the making of the orders sought at this juncture.
Proposed Conditions
-
Mr Ibrahim objected to some of the proposed conditions that would apply to an interim supervision order and submitted that others should be the subject of some variation.
-
It is necessary to note that s 29(1) of the Act provides that an ISO (or ESO) may require compliance with such conditions as the Court considers appropriate including those set out in that subsection. In addition, s 29(1A) provides certain specified conditions that must be included "unless the Supreme Court orders differently".
-
The plaintiff referred to Dr Eagle having described the most salient risk factor in this case being the relapse of Mr Ibrahim's mental health condition. If that should occur, he may form persecutory beliefs fuelled by his grievance against the Government and may use or threaten violence in a way that is justified by his extreme interpretation of religion. Mr Ibrahim is vulnerable to mental health relapse, particularly in the context of further substance use. Dr Eagle also noted that he is susceptible to influence from others who may hold extremist views. These were the central risks to which the conditions proposed by the plaintiff were intended to address.
-
During the course of today’s hearing I have gone through all of the proposed conditions to which objection was taken, with further submissions being made upon Mr Ibrahim's behalf. I have concluded (and given some short oral reasons) that at least at this interim stage, there is justification for all of the impugned conditions applying to an ISO and, subject to one matter, in the terms in which they have been proposed. That one matter relates to condition 27 in which some further words will be added to accommodate a concern about the possibility of unwitting breach.
Orders
-
I make the orders set out in the short minute of orders (as summarised above at [2]).
**********
Decision last updated: 16 February 2021
0
0
1