Attorney-General (Cth) v Amin (Preliminary) [2023] NSWSC 1280

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Attorney-General (Cth) v Amin (Preliminary) [2023] NSWSC 1280 Hearing dates: 13 October 2023 Date of orders: 13 October 2023 Decision date: 31 October 2023 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Weinstein J Decision: See [41] Catchwords: HIGH RISK OFFENDERS – application for extended supervision order – preliminary hearing for interim relief – terrorism related offences – orders by consent – interim supervision order made Legislation Cited: Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) Customs Act 1901 (Cth) Cases Cited: Attorney General (Cth) v Pender [2022] NSWSC 1773 Attorney-General (Cth) v Amin [2023] NSWSC 1210 Attorney-General v Khan [2022] VSC 507 Lynn v State of New South Wales (2016) 91 NSWLR 636; [2016] NSWCA 57 New South Wales v Naaman (No 2) (2018) 276 A Crim R 30; [2018] NSWCA 328 R v Amin [2021] NSWSC 1267 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia (Plaintiff) Nowroz Amin (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: C Lenehan SC, K Pham, T Liu (Plaintiff) R Wilson SC and S Talbert (Defendant)

Solicitors: Australian Government Solicitor (Plaintiff) Legal Aid NSW (Defendant) File Number(s): 2023/319785 Publication restriction: See orders

JUDGMENT 1. By Summons filed on 9 October 2023, the plaintiff Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia seeks orders pursuant to s 105A.7A(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) (the Criminal Code) that the defendant, Nowroz Amin, be subject to an Extended Supervision Order (ESO) for 12 months under the conditions set out in the Schedule to the Summons. 2. By way of interim relief, the Attorney-General seeks an order pursuant to s 105A.9A of the Criminal Code that Mr Amin be subject to an Interim Supervision Order (ISO) for a period of 28 days, imposing the same conditions as set out in the Schedule. Orders were also sought, unopposed, for the suppression of certain material. 3. On 13 October 2023, on an urgent basis, I conducted a preliminary hearing to determine whether an ISO should be made, pursuant to s 105A.9A(2) of the Criminal Code. By the time of the hearing, the parties had reached consensus on all matters, and I made all interim orders sought by the plaintiff, without admission and without prejudice to the defendant's opposition to the making of an ESO. I am grateful to Mr Lenehan SC who appeared on behalf of the Attorney-General, and Mr Wilson SC who appeared for Mr Amin for the manner in which they conducted these proceedings, given the short timeframe in which the matter was prepared.