NSW Caselaw
Supreme Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: State of New South Wales v Nikua (Final) [2021] NSWSC 1240 Hearing dates: 23 September 2021 Date of orders: 30 September 2021 Decision date: 30 September 2021 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Dhanji J Decision: (1) Pursuant to ss 5B and 9(1)(a) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) ("the Act"), the defendant be subject to an extended supervision order ("the extended supervision order") for a period of two years from the date of the order. (2) Pursuant to s 11 of the Act, the defendant, for the period of the extended supervision order, must comply with the conditions set out in the schedule to this judgment. Catchwords: HIGH RISK OFFENDERS – application for an extended supervision order – high risk violent offender – index offence of wounding with intent to inflict grievous bodily harm – history of offences involving violence – lengthy period in custody – order made – resolution of disputed conditions – offender proceeding reasonably well under ISO in the community – dispute as to disclosure and surveillance conditions – actual and potential outcomes of offence – the elusive concept of midnight – "all stick and no carrot" Legislation Cited: Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth), s 36 Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 33 Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), ss 3, 4, 4A, 5B, 5H, 7, 9, 11, 24AA Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW), s 36 Cases Cited: Lynn v State of New South Wales (2016) 91 NSWLR 636; [2016] NSWCA 57 Prowse v McIntyre (1961) 111 CLR 264 State of NSW v Holschier (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 1921 State of New South Wales v Lynn [2013] NSWSC 1147 State of New South Wales v Nikua (Preliminary) [2021] NSWSC 781 State of New South Wales v Pearson (Final) [2021] NSWSC 775 State of New South Wales v Wilkinson (Preliminary) [2020] NSWSC 1813 Winters v Attorney General of New South Wales (2008) 182 A Crim R 107; [2008] NSWCA 33 Category: Principal judgment Parties: State of New South Wales (Plaintiff) Solomone Nikua (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: P Aitken (Plaintiff) D Carroll (Defendant)
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate