State of New South Wales v Hardy [2022] NSWSC 1724

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: State of New South Wales v Hardy [2022] NSWSC 1724 Hearing dates: 14 December 2022 Date of orders: 16 December 2022 Decision date: 16 December 2022 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Campbell J Decision: See Judgment at [39]. Catchwords: HIGH RISK OFFENDERS – extended supervision orders – application – relevance of conditions to risk Legislation Cited: Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), Part 5.3, s 100.1 Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 31 Firearms Act 1996 (NSW), ss 36, 51F Terrorism (High Risk Offenders) Act 2017 (NSW), ss 20, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 50 Weapons Prohibition Act 1998 (NSW), s 7 Cases Cited: Hardy v State of New South Wales [2021] NSWCA 338 State of New South Wales v Hardy [2021] NSWSC 323 State of New South Wales v Hardy (Final) [2021] NSWSC 900 State of New South Wales v Mathers (a pseudonym) (No 2) [2019] NSWSC 473 Category: Procedural rulings Parties: State of New South Wales (Plaintiff) Christopher Bruce Hardy (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: J Emmett SC with A Zheng for the Plaintiff D McLure SC with J Wilcox for the Defendant

Solicitors: Crown Solicitors NSW (Plaintiff) Ryan Payten Le (Defendant) File Number(s): 2022/335955

Judgment 1. By summons filed on 9 November 2022, the State of New South Wales ("the State") applies for what would be, if the application is successful, the third extended supervision order against the defendant under s 25 of the Terrorism (High Risk Offenders) Act 2017 (NSW). (References to legislative provisions in this judgment are references to that Act unless otherwise specified). 2. The Extended Supervision Order ("ESO") to which the defendant, Mr Hardy, is currently subject was imposed on 26 July 2021 for a period of 18 months by Johnson J: State of New South Wales v Hardy (Final) [2021] NSWSC 900 ("NSW v Hardy (Final)"); Hardy v State of New South Wales [2021] NSWCA 338. It expires on 27 January 2023. 3. By way of interim relief, the State seeks the imposition of an Interim Supervision Order ("ISO") for a period of 28 days in accordance with the provisions of ss 27 and 28, the appointment by the Court of two qualified experts, being psychiatrists or registered psychologists to conduct separate examinations of Mr Hardy and furnish reports to the Court and an order directing Mr Hardy to attend those examinations. Those latter orders are sought under s 24(5). 4. This judgment follows the preliminary hearing into the State's application which the Court is required to conduct in accordance with the provisions of s 24(4). 5. I have received the considerable assistance of written and oral submissions by Mr J Emmett SC and Ms Alice Zheng on behalf of the State and Mr D McLure SC and Mr J Wilcox on behalf of Mr Hardy. Without any intended disrespect to the careful arguments of counsel and because this will be the sixth judgment by the Court (including the Court of Appeal) dealing with Mr Hardy's supervision under the Act and as there is no real dispute that the facts alleged in the supporting documentation relied upon by the State as referred to in s 23(3) would support the grant of the interim relief sought, I propose to deal with the matter relatively briefly.