Legal Research
Cases
State of New South Wales v White (Final)

State of New South Wales v White (Final)

Case [2018] NSWSC 1943 14 December 2018

Terrorism Offences

Extended Supervision Order

Risk Assessment

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: State of New South Wales v White (Final) [2018] NSWSC 1943
Hearing dates: 21 September 2018 and 28 September 2018
Date of orders: 14 December 2018
Decision date: 14 December 2018
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: N Adams J
Decision:
(1) Pursuant to ss 20, 25(1)(a) and 26(6) of the Terrorism (High Risk Offenders) Act 2017 (NSW), the defendant is to be supervised under an extended supervision order for a period of two years from the date of this order.

(2) Pursuant to s 29(1) of the Terrorism (High Risk Offenders) Act 2017 (NSW), the defendant is to comply with the conditions set out in the Schedule to this judgment for the duration of the extended supervision order.
(3) Access to the Court file in these proceedings is restricted such that access would only be permitted to a non-party with the leave of a Judge of this Court and with prior notice to the parties so as to allow them to be heard in respect of the application for access.
Catchwords: TERRORISM HIGH RISK OFFENDER – Application for extended supervision order (“ESO”) sought by the State of NSW under the Terrorism (High Risk Offenders) Act (“THRO Act”) – where defendant had associations with right wing extremist groups, skinhead culture and Odinism – where index offence involved burning down the Destiny Church of Australian Christian Churches shortly after handing out Right Wing Revolution pamphlets – where defendant had committed previous offence by making phone calls involving anti-Semitic threats of extreme violence and sexual assault to the Sydney Jewish Museum – whether statutory pre-conditions for the making of an ESO under s 20 of the THRO Act are made out – whether defendant poses unacceptable risk of committing a serious terrorism offence if not supervised under an ESO
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 195, 310J
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 20
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 9, 10
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), Sch, ss 4, 100.1, 101.2, 101.4, 101.5, 101.6, 102.1, 102.2, 102.3, 102.4, 102.8, Pt 5.3
Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW), s 32
Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Regulation 2017 (NSW), cl 5(1)(c)
Terrorism (High Risk Offenders) Act 2017 (NSW), ss 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 12A, 14, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 29
Cases Cited: Lynn v State of New South Wales (2016) 91 NSWLR 636; [2016] NSWCA 57
State of New South Wales v Briar (No 3) [2017] NSWSC 1255
State of New South Wales v Burns [2014] NSWSC 1014
State of New South Wales v Pacey (Final) [2015] NSWSC 1983
State of New South Wales v Simcock (Final) [2016] NSWSC 1805
State of New South Wales v Sines (No 3) [2017] NSWSC 985
State of NSW v Ceissman [2018] NSWSC 508
State of NSW v Donovan (2015) 90 NSWLR 389; [2015] NSWCA 280
State of NSW v Keith Farringdon [2018] NSWSC 874
Wilde v State…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading State of New South Wales v White (Final)

Details

AGLC: State of New South Wales v White (Final) [2018] NSWSC 1943
Case: [2018] NSWSC 1943
Decision Date: 14 December 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of State of New South Wales v White (Final) involved the State of New South Wales seeking an extended supervision order (ESO) under the Terrorism (High Risk Offenders) Act (THRO Act) against the defendant, who had a history of association with right wing extremist groups, skinhead culture, and Odinism. The index offence for which the ESO was sought was the burning down of the Destiny Church of Australian Christian Churches, an act which occurred shortly after the defendant distributed Right Wing Revolution pamphlets. Prior to this, the defendant had also committed an offence involving making phone calls with anti-Semitic threats of extreme violence and sexual assault to the Sydney Jewish Museum. The primary legal issues before the court were whether the statutory preconditions for making an ESO under section 20 of the THRO Act were satisfied, and if the defendant posed an unacceptable risk of committing a serious terrorism offence if not supervised under an ESO.

The court examined the defendant’s history of extremist activities, including the burning of the church and the threatening phone calls. It considered the defendant's associations with known extremist groups and ideologies, as well as the nature and seriousness of the index offence and previous offence. The court also assessed the likelihood of the defendant committing a serious terrorism offence in the future without supervision. In reaching its decision, the court weighed the evidence of the defendant’s past conduct and associations against the statutory criteria for an ESO, concluding that the preconditions were indeed met. The court found that the defendant did pose an unacceptable risk of committing a serious terrorism offence if not subject to the supervision of an ESO.

The court's reasoning was based on the defendant’s demonstrable commitment to extremist ideologies and the seriousness of the past offences committed. It was determined that the defendant's history of engaging in activities that promote violence and extremism, coupled with the nature of the index offence, established a significant risk of future offending. The court was satisfied that the defendant’s past actions and associations were strong indicators of a potential for future terrorism-related activities. Consequently, the court granted the application for an extended supervision order, finding that the statutory criteria were met and that the defendant's risk profile warranted such an order.

Orders