State of New South Wales v Richardson (Final)

The State of New South Wales applied for an extended supervision order against the defendant, Richardson, under the Terrorism (High Risk Offenders) Act 2017. The defendant, a diagnosed schizophrenic, was incarcerated and had expressed intentions to commit racial violence upon release. The primary issue before the court was whether Richardson qualified as a "convicted NSW terrorism activity offender" due to his advocacy for terrorist acts or violent extremism. The court needed to determine if his statements to treating psychologists during interviews amounted to advocacy within the meaning of the Act. The court also considered whether Richardson posed an unacceptable risk of committing a serious terrorism offence.

The court examined whether Richardson's statements, which were disordered and deluded commentary on race and socio-political affairs, constituted advocacy for terrorist acts or violent extremism. The court found that Richardson's statements did not seek to persuade others and were made in a clinical context. Therefore, they did not amount to advocacy. The court also concluded that Richardson did not pose an unacceptable risk of committing a serious terrorism offence, as he had no history of committing serious physical violence, and there was no unacceptable risk that any future acts of property damage or violence would be in furtherance of a political ideology or for the purpose of intimidating the government or public.

In light of the findings, the court dismissed the application for an extended supervision order against Richardson. The court held that Richardson did not qualify as a "convicted NSW terrorism activity offender" and did not pose an unacceptable risk of committing a serious terrorism offence. The orders of the court were that the application for an extended supervision order be dismissed and that Richardson be released from detention unless subject to other lawful orders.