NSW Caselaw
Supreme Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: State of New South Wales v Armstrong (Final) [2025] NSWSC 52 Hearing dates: 11 December 2024 Decision date: 20 February 2025 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Ierace J Decision: (1) Prayer 2 of the summons, which seeks an interim supervision order, is dismissed. (2) Pursuant to ss 5B and 9(1)(a) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), order that the defendant be subject to an extended supervision order ("the extended supervision order") for a period of two years. (3) Pursuant to s 11 of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) direct that the defendant, for the period of the extended supervision order, comply with the conditions set out in the Schedule to this judgment. (4) Access to the Supreme Court's file in respect of any document shall not be granted to a non-party without the leave of a Judge of the Court and, if any application for access is made by a non-party in respect of any document, the parties are to be notified by the Registrar so as to allow them an opportunity to be heard in relation to the application for access. Catchwords: HIGH RISK OFFENDER – final hearing – application for extended supervision order ("ESO") – where previous ESO was breached – dispute as to whether the Court should make an ESO – whether unacceptable risk of committing another serious sexual offence – dispute regarding the necessity of proposed ESO conditions – ESO imposed for two years with conditions Legislation Cited: Child Protection (Offenders Prohibition Orders) Act 2004 (NSW) Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 (NSW) Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 (NSW), s 160A Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), ss 3, 5B(d), 5D, 6(3)(a), 6(3)(b), 9(1)(a), 9(3), 11 Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 61M(2) (repealed) Cases Cited: State of New South Wales v Armstrong [2015] NSWSC 1510 State of New South Wales v Armstrong [2024] NSWSC 1182 Category: Principal judgment Parties: State of New South Wales (Plaintiff) Matthew Armstrong (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: Mr K Ng (Plaintiff) Mr J Wilcox (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