State of NSW v Mathers [2019] NSWSC 7

State of NSW v Mathers [2019] NSWSC 7

The Court found that the defendant met at least one prerequisite of s.10 of the Act by advocating support for violent extremism but not for a terrorist act as defined by the Code. The evidence established a potential risk sufficient to justify making an order, but an interim supervision order with rigorous...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Plaintiff: State of New South Wales; Defendant: John Mathers (pseudonym)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 January 2019
Procedural Posture
Application Under Terrorism (high Risk Offenders) Act 2017 (nsw) / Preliminary Hearing and Orders
Outcome
Application granted in part: interim supervision order imposed.
Legal Topics
Interim Supervision Order, High Risk Terrorism Offender, Statutory Preconditions, Sovereign Citizen Movement, Court File Access Restriction
Criminal Law National Security Law Terrorism Law Interim Supervision Order High Risk Terrorism Offender Statutory Preconditions Sovereign Citizen Movement Court File Access Restriction

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

State of New South Wales

Plaintiff

John Mathers (pseudonym)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application Under Terrorism (high Risk Offenders) Act 2017 (nsw) / Preliminary Hearing and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether statutory preconditions for an order under Terrorism (High Risk Offenders) Act 2017 (NSW) are established
  2. 2 Whether an Interim Detention Order (IDO) or an Interim Supervision Order (ISO) should be imposed
  3. 3 What conditions should attach to the ISO

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the defendant met at least one prerequisite of s.10 of the Act by advocating support for violent extremism but not for a terrorist act as defined by the Code. The evidence established a potential risk sufficient to justify making an order, but an interim supervision order with rigorous conditions, rather than an interim detention order, was sufficient to protect the community at this stage.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part: interim supervision order imposed.

Orders

  • Order appointing one qualified psychiatrist and one registered psychologist to examine the Defendant and furnish reports to the Court.
  • Order that the Defendant be subject to an interim supervision order for 28 days pursuant to ss.27 and 28(1) of the Act.