Hardy v State of New South Wales [2021] NSWCA 338

Hardy v State of New South Wales [2021] NSWCA 338

The appellant's conduct and statements constituted advocacy of violent extremism with the necessary intention, and the evidence supported the finding that he posed an unacceptable risk of committing a serious terrorism offence if not kept under supervision. Mental disorder did not negate the ability to form the requisite intention. The primary judge properly considered expert reports, the appellant's failure to give evidence, and applicable legal principles. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the extended supervision order stands.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision on Appeal From the Supreme Court, Common Law Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['extended Supervision Orders' 'high Risk Offenders' 'terrorism' 'violent Extremism' 'mental Health and Criminal Responsibility']
['criminal Law' 'public Law' 'anti Terrorism' 'civil Procedure'] ['extended Supervision Orders' 'high Risk Offenders' 'terrorism' 'violent Extremism' 'mental Health and Criminal Responsibility']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision on Appeal From the Supreme Court, Common Law Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the appellant was a 'convicted NSW terrorism activity offender' under s 10(1)(c)(i) Terrorism (High Risk Offenders) Act 2017 (NSW)" 'Whether the appellant posed an unacceptable risk of committing a serious terrorism offence justifying an extended supervision order under s 20(d) Terrorism (High Risk Offenders) Act 2017 (NSW)' 'Whether delusional disorder negated the requisite intention for advocacy or commission of terrorism-related offences' "Whether expert opinions relied on the appellant's account and adequacy of their consideration" "Whether the judge's use of the appellant's failure to give evidence and rejection of expert questioning constituted error"]

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant's conduct and statements constituted advocacy of violent extremism with the necessary intention, and the evidence supported the finding that he posed an unacceptable risk of committing a serious terrorism offence if not kept under supervision. Mental disorder did not negate the ability to form the requisite intention. The primary judge properly considered expert reports, the appellant's failure to give evidence, and applicable legal principles. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the extended supervision order stands.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['Dismiss the appeal from the judgment in the Common Law Division delivered on 26 July 2021']