State of New South Wales v Hardy (Final) [2021] NSWSC 900

State of New South Wales v Hardy (Final) [2021] NSWSC 900

The Court found that the Defendant qualifies as a 'convicted NSW terrorism activity offender' under s.10(1)(c)(i) and s.20(c)(iii) THRO Act, on the basis of his conviction for the index offence and associated conduct including advocacy of violent extremism. Despite expert assessments of low risk if current stability is maintained, the Court was satisfied, to a high degree of probability, that the Defendant poses an unacceptable risk of committing a serious terrorism offence in the absence of continued supervision, due to his lack of insight, persistent denial, risk of mental health decompensation, and absence of meaningful engagement with rehabilitation; accordingly, an ESO was ordered...

Parties
Plaintiff: State of New South Wales; Defendant: Christopher Bruce Hardy
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 July 2021
Procedural Posture
Application for Extended Supervision Order Under Terrorism (high Risk Offenders) Act 2017 (nsw) / Final Hearing and Judgment
Outcome
ESO ordered: application granted
Legal Topics
Extended Supervision Orders, Terrorism (high Risk Offenders) Act 2017 (nsw), Unacceptable Risk Test, Mental Health and Criminal Responsibility, Issue Estoppel, Sentencing and Supervision
Criminal Law Counter Terrorism Law Mental Health Law Extended Supervision Orders Terrorism (high Risk Offenders) Act 2017 (nsw) Unacceptable Risk Test Mental Health and Criminal Responsibility Issue Estoppel +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 38 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

State of New South Wales

Plaintiff

Christopher Bruce Hardy

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Extended Supervision Order Under Terrorism (high Risk Offenders) Act 2017 (nsw) / Final Hearing and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant is a 'convicted NSW terrorism activity offender' under s.20(c)(iii) THRO Act
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant poses an unacceptable risk of committing a serious terrorism offence if not kept under supervision under an ESO
  3. 3 If so, whether an ESO should be made, and the appropriate duration and conditions

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the Defendant qualifies as a 'convicted NSW terrorism activity offender' under s.10(1)(c)(i) and s.20(c)(iii) THRO Act, on the basis of his conviction for the index offence and associated conduct including advocacy of violent extremism. Despite expert assessments of low risk if current stability is maintained, the Court was satisfied, to a high degree of probability, that the Defendant poses an unacceptable risk of committing a serious terrorism offence in the absence of continued supervision, due to his lack of insight, persistent denial, risk of mental health decompensation, and absence of meaningful engagement with rehabilitation; accordingly, an ESO was ordered...

Court Disposition

ESO ordered: application granted

Orders

  • An order pursuant to ss. 20, 25(1) and 26 of the Terrorism (High Risk Offenders) Act 2017 (NSW) that the Defendant be subject to an extended supervision order for a period of eighteen months from 28 July 2021 to expire on 27 January 2023.
  • An order pursuant to s.29 THRO Act directing the Defendant, for the period of the extended supervision order, to comply with the conditions set out in the Schedule to the judgment.